News Media Distortion Examples

G

GoodEnuff

Senior Member
You know, a headline that leads you to think one thing, yet later in the article the real info is stated.

Like this: (Fox News Headline) "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes following 2011 Japanese nuclear accident"

I thought, "This will be about mutations caused by the nuclear radiation. I'll read it."

The subtitle in small print: "After the nuclear accident occurred and humans fled Fukushima, a population of domestic pigs escaped and began breeding with wild boars in the area." Later in the article: "The study showed that lack of human intervention allowed for the wild boar population to increase rapidly. Combined with the ability to breed more often, which was passed down from the pig mothers, also helped the pigs and wild boars' genes mix together more quickly."

Big surprise. Not. I hate when the media does this!
 
I want to add that on Fox's main page, the headline reads: "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes in nuclear fallout zone". Click on that and you get what I posted above.
 
K
GoodEnuff said:
You know, a headline that leads you to think one thing, yet later in the article the real info is stated.

Like this: (Fox News Headline) "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes following 2011 Japanese nuclear accident"

I thought, "This will be about mutations caused by the nuclear radiation. I'll read it."

The subtitle in small print: "After the nuclear accident occurred and humans fled Fukushima, a population of domestic pigs escaped and began breeding with wild boars in the area." Later in the article: "The study showed that lack of human intervention allowed for the wild boar population to increase rapidly. Combined with the ability to breed more often, which was passed down from the pig mothers, also helped the pigs and wild boars' genes mix together more quickly."

Big surprise. Not. I hate when the media does this!
Click to expand...
Click bait.
 
Click bait is right. I am frustrated that I was suckered into it. Again.
WhatInThe said:
Hybrid has an artificial man made connotation to it. It's cross breeding. Not mutation.
Click to expand...
Correct! The article was vague in some ways but I think the domestic pigs were "hybrids" to make them reproduce more often. It was rather poorly written (Surprise!) in that regard. Pfft!
 
Here's another (also from Fox)

"Dangerous rodent-borne virus detected at high levels in agricultural region" on the main page. Click to go to the article...
"Hantavirus exposure risk may be higher than believed in parts of US, study finds"
The study states they tested 189 rodents from eight farms and two wild zones. Of those 189, 30% showed signs of "exposure". That would be 57 rodents. Ten percent (19) tested showed active infections. 19.

A headline of "19 rodents tested positive for hantavirus study shows" wouldn't create much sensation, would it?
 
GoodEnuff said:
Interesting, yes. Surprising? No. And as @Oldeagle66 stated, MSN is the same. In fact, I would love for somebody to point me to any news site that isn't. AP doesn't seem to be quite as sensational, or at least they are more subtle about it.

Edited to add: Where's my soap box?!
Click to expand...
Yes, all media outlets are capable of mistakes, fabrications, enhancements, or failure to adequately check their sources.

When I see a news story, I generally compare it to what I find elsewhere on sites I trust which validate or discredit it. That's about all I can do, if I want to stay informed on what's going on in my community and the nation.

I'm often more concerned about what is sometimes spoken in real time by well-known public figures which is "fake" news, as I alluded to in -> this post.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
Yes, all media outlets are capable of mistakes, fabrications, enhancements, or failure to adequately check their sources.

When I see a news story, I generally compare it to what I find elsewhere on sites I trust which validate or discredit it. That's about all I can do, if I want to stay informed on what's going on in my community and the nation.

I'm often more concerned about what is sometimes spoken in real time by well-known public figures which is "fake" news, as I alluded to in -> this post.
Click to expand...
May I ask which sites you trust???
 
GoodEnuff said:
Interesting, yes. Surprising? No. And as @Oldeagle66 stated, MSN is the same. In fact, I would love for somebody to point me to any news site that isn't. AP doesn't seem to be quite as sensational, or at least they are more subtle about it.

Edited to add: Where's my soap box?!
Click to expand...
I agree with you on AP, I will rarely go any other place now to read on something. I don't find sensationalism interesting. Too many
emotional tag words to sift through. I just want as close to fact only as I can find.
 
GoodEnuff said:
May I ask which sites you trust???
Click to expand...
In the AM and PM, I tune into any network such as NBC or CBS, or ABC. If I want a quick text only news fix, I go to NPR which has no ads or popups. I don't implicitly trust or distrust any news site unless it's for the weather report or local news about my community - stories on those issues are generally reliable.

Edited for clarification.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
Yes, all media outlets are capable of mistakes, fabrications, enhancements, or failure to adequately check their sources.

When I see a news story, I generally compare it to what I find elsewhere on sites I trust which validate or discredit it. That's about all I can do, if I want to stay informed on what's going on in my community and the nation.

I'm often more concerned about what is sometimes spoken in real time by well-known public figures which is "fake" news, as I alluded to in -> this post.
Click to expand...
Things like this is why I triple check and research everything I read online.
 
My personal preference is to read it myself. I don't like watching newscasters today. Especially the female ones.
I miss the days of the calm toned newscasters as KSav referred to, The female ones use their voices to emphasize certain
hit home points to heighten a person's emotions. Sometimes close to a shrill. That noise to me gives their newscast a Jerry
Springer atmosphere and I can't sit through that well. I tried different ones and it seems it's the style today and I will
just read mine and make up my own mind, not be led by others tone of voice.
 
GoodEnuff said:
You know, a headline that leads you to think one thing, yet later in the article the real info is stated.

Like this: (Fox News Headline) "Hybrid 'mutant' pig population explodes following 2011 Japanese nuclear accident"

I thought, "This will be about mutations caused by the nuclear radiation. I'll read it."

The subtitle in small print: "After the nuclear accident occurred and humans fled Fukushima, a population of domestic pigs escaped and began breeding with wild boars in the area." Later in the article: "The study showed that lack of human intervention allowed for the wild boar population to increase rapidly. Combined with the ability to breed more often, which was passed down from the pig mothers, also helped the pigs and wild boars' genes mix together more quickly."

Big surprise. Not. I hate when the media does this!
Click to expand...
That's what you get for looking at Fox "news!" :rolleyes:

The only time I look at Fox "news" is to see if they're covering an important story that all the other major news outlets are covering. If it puts their preferred political party in a bad light, they don't cover it, or they'll burry it. Fox is about as legitimate a "news" organization as is The Onion, yet many people rely on it for their sole source of information. It's no wonder our country is so screwed up.
 
I have little problem reading stories from any news media sites without being misled because simply reading whatever won't result in belief but rather whatever is considered as relative. Thus, as one very much a relative objective thinker, am not one to avoid more extreme news sites.
 
RambleTamble said:
That's what you get for looking at Fox "news!" :rolleyes:

The only time I look at Fox "news" is to see if they're covering an important story that all the other major news outlets are covering. If it puts their preferred political party in a bad light, they don't cover it, or they'll burry it. Fox is about as legitimate a "news" organization as is The Onion, yet many people rely on it for their sole source of information. It's no wonder our country is so screwed up.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and MS NOW are just as bad as Fox. They simply manipulate their stories to favor a different group of extreme partisans. "No wonder our country is so screwed up." Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top