It may not be a topic with broad appeal, but from time to time I write about the state of journalism in this country. I've written here about the affects of evolving technology on the profession, and here about the bizarre agenda-setting and information-killing hysterics often readily observable from major news outlets.
Consider this your warning that if this topic does not interest you, neither will the rest of this post.
Overall, people should know I take a generally cynical view of much of the news media these days. It's half the result of working in the business for several years, and half the result of working with the business for several more. Pieces like this one should give you a clearer idea where I'm coming from.
Which leads us to this story from a Michigan paper about a man suffering electrical burns. I came across it through my work. It's not a story about a major issue of the day. It's not conspiratorial. It's not tainted with liberal bias. It is, however, almost laughably inept in its reporting. And unfortunately, probably is indicative of why so many distrust major news outlets to begin with.
The headline is clumsy, and acts as a big-time buzz kill: "Worker injured...but not seriously." Well, I'm hooked. Nothing like what sounds like little more than a stubbed toe to compel readers to dive in.
Within the first two sentences, the reporter assures us they are an authority on what happened: "His condition was unknown." Hmm. How do we know it wasn't "serious," exactly? Oh, I see: "the man was conscious and breathing." What a relief. Good thing all it takes to get a clean bill of health is the ability to demonstrate consciousness and respiration. I suppose screaming in unbearable pain would demonstrate these two things as well, but then we'd lose our catchy headline. So we move on...
Our headline gets a little messy when a fire chief explains electrical burns don't always show their extent outwardly. In the next paragraph, things get even more complicated for our optimistic headline writer: "(the incident) sent about 440 volts coursing through his (the victim's) body. He's lucky to be alive," says the fire chief. The story mercifully ends after our dutiful reporter reiterates, "the extent of the victim's injuries were unknown."
So, let's review: A man suffers electrical burns. He had 440 volts of electricity course through his body. I'm not sure how to analogize that, but I'm sure it doesn't tickle. The one expert interviewed for the story says he's lucky to be alive. The reporter admits twice they have no idea how the victim is doing. But, apparently because we know he was "conscious and breathing," we arrive at the conclusion: "Worker injured...but not seriously."
Seriously?
The problem here (well, one of the problems here) is that it's apparent this reporter was rushed to post something online or meet a deadline to print, and did not check his logic. In his defense, he's not the only one to do it, and he won't be the last. How many times have cable news channels breathlessly rushed to tell us about a breaking tragedy (Balloon Boy, anyone?), only to realize upon further inspection it wasn't as it seemed.
Journalists are admittedly in a tough spot these days: The demand for news and information is constant, and pesky things like checking facts or logic can mean losing out to a competitor. How they adapt, especially with new tools such as Twitter, et al, remains to be seen.
But here's hoping we can at least expect a little congruity between headline and body, and paragraph to paragraph.
You feel me?
AF
0 comments:
Post a Comment