The poor quality of reporting today
by subacati
There once was a time when a person had to study and achieve a degree to be a reporter. But sadly, this no longer appears to be the case. :awww: …
Two articles on the Yahoo news sight caught my notice tonight. However, after reading them, I can't help wondering if it was even worth my effort. :left:
Consider the following extract of this report.
The cheapest EE tariff offers just 500MB worth of downloads costing £36 per month. Customers who want to download more than their allowance will be forced to pay extra.
The top EE tariff for standard customers will cost £56 per month with a data allowance of 8GB.
Now maybe my maths is bad, but according to my calculations 8GB at £56 comes to about 143MB per £1. Whereas 500MB at £36 is only around 14MB per £1. :left:
So how is 14MB per £1 cheaper than 143MB per £1 again? :confused:
Now the 500MB per month contract may be at a lower price than the 8GB per month contract, but it's not cheaper, it's more expensive! :irked:
Then there is this article wherein it is stated;
Militants demanding an extreme adherence to Islamic law – including minimal rights for women – insist girls should not go to school.
Whoever came up with that sentence is either ignorant, misinformed or just plain lying! :irked:
Islam teaches us that we must educate our children and makes no distinction between a child's gender in this regard. As for the claim that Islamic law demands "minimal rights" for Women, that is a gross distortion. Not only did Islamic law significantly increased the rights allocated to the Arabic Women when it was introduced around 1400 years ago. And many of the rights that are specifically given to Women in the Quran were not given to women in non muslim European societies until the late eighteen hundreds.
These 'extremists' who want women's rights limited and don't want female children to be educated are not following Islamic law. :awww:
These two articles are extreme examples of shoddy journalism. It's no wonder that the world is so messed up with 'informed' people getting there 'facts' from such poor articles.
subacati 
I couldn't agree more. As you know, I am an oldschool reporter. Don't have a degree, though, but that's because in the late eighties, when I was learning the trade, it was considered a craftmanship, like carpenting, masonry and, by the way, teaching. So, you really couldn't get a degree in journalism. That changed. Now you can get a degree in journalism at universities. I don't think I like that, because this means that you see people, literally just out of school, becoming employed at the media with only theoretical knowledge of what's going on in real life. Journalism is perhaps the one trade in the world that demands most 'trivia' in how world works. Knowledge you won't learn in school. I liked the old way where you would get employed at a newspaper on your writer's skills, start as a trainee or in a standard internship and work your way up from that. Today, people will come out from media schools, still wet behind the ears, and expect to be treated like Tom Wolfe from day one.That's my opinion but it's shared by many of my old colleagues. Also those who are still in trade. They all agree, that something has happened, and it don't look good, if you know what I mean.And yeah, today, everybody is a reporter, right?
Originally posted by Aqualion:
Point taken. Although I would still expect anyone who expects to be taken seriously as a reporter to be able to do basic maths! :irked:Of course, the problem might not be that reporter's maths skills. It's equally possible that they just don't know the meaning of the word 'cheapest' in this context. Of course, as an English journalist, that's an even bigger fail! 🙄
You gotta know to put two and two together if you want to be a proper journalist. I agree. But I guess it's a question of money. If say an independent internet news site can get a couple of 12 year old selfannounced prodigies to write stories for free, they wouldn't employ a skilled journalist whose salary starts with €5,000 a month, would they?That's easy math…
I see why you're upset at the mobile phone section but you're not looking at it the right way. £36 p/m is cheaper than £56 p/m, that's it.What you've worked out is the actual value per megabyte, which is probably far more useful when deciding on a tariff, but isn't what people see.Oh, and if you expect Yahoo to have proper journalists, you're probably looking in the wrong place – IMHO 😦
Originally posted by SharkfinUK:
No, it's a lower price. Cheaper, by definition , means of a higher value. :up:Or rather, a better value/price ratio. Of course, the term "cheap s#!t" came about because of the tendency for business to sell inferior quality product at a slightly lower price than the original product and advertise it as "cheap." But that's advertising and advertising agencies are supposed to lie. Journalism used to be the most noble of professions once upon an eon ago. Now it's become the lowest.Originally posted by SharkfinUK:
Well I don't actually look there for news. :pBut they put these links up in my face everytime I check my inbox there and sometimes, something actually catches my attention. :rolleyes:Originally posted by Aqualion:
:doh: Your supposition more real than it should be! 😥
Originally posted by Furie:
So true. When I was 17, I was stupid enough to knock my girl friend up, then stupid enough to agree on us having the baby, then stupid enough to stay with her ;). So, I had to find a way to make money fast. So, I started up as a trainee at a news magazine (I sold my first newspaper story when I was 13, so I sort of knew where I was going) and took a second job as bartender in the bar just opposite from the media house. In hindsight, this was not a bad decision, becuase it happened to be the favourite bar of many of my colleagues and also some of the old-timers (retired reporters). So, I learned almost as much there as on the job, if you know what I mean. Also, as a bartender you learn how to listen. This is probably the most needed skill in journalism.By the way, what is the difference between a bartender and an international terrorist?
The unit price may be more expensive if you're using it for that and that alone, but the overall price is cheaper. In the UK, most people who take a contract (have no intention of paying it) are doing so just to get a top of the line phone that they don't have to pay for up front. A vast majority of those will actually use a pay and go SIM in the phone rather than the contract one. Dual SIM battery packs were one of the first accessories on sale here and a hell of a lot of savvy consumers swap between contract and pay and go SIMs for their needs.Unfortunately the word "extremist" is a catch all that allows anything to be said. I could say that a Muslim extremist likes to dress as a bunny rabbit, say "Ni" to little girls and fiddle with himself while drinking Kool Aid. This may not describe the majority of Muslims, or even extremists, but because I've come up with an extreme case it can pass and is more entertaining than the Muslim extremists that keep showing up in rival publications.The fact is that waters are already muddied by a lack of understanding between creeds and cultures. You know that Islamic law elevated women from their previous position when it was introduced. But that was 1400 years ago and the world has moved on considerably since then, leaving that once elevated state to be akin to that of an oppressed minority now, at least in comparison to women in other countries. Add in the extremists who don't cling to the law at all and it becomes hard to separate the different levels of oppression from each other. I honestly couldn't tell you what women are allowed to do under Islamic law that they are prohibited from doing by extremists. All I know is that there's a lot that women can't do (drive for example, but we all know why that's a good idea).Originally posted by Aqualion:
Bartending, psychology and being a gigolo also require that sort of knowledge. 😉
Around here journalists who should have university education has started to write totally imaginary stories 😦 On one classic example journalist wrote a page load of "what could have happened" and in the end of the story revealed it was just a story not based on facts.And other kind of modern journalism is to write about what has happened to the journalist of her/himself. So, journalist just does something goofy and then writes a story about it :faint:
Originally posted by serola:
That's not a modern thing. It's a certain journalistic genre, dating back to the sixties. It was called 'New Journalism' back then. You can look it up, if you're interested. Big names like Truman Capote wrote stories in this style, mixing fiction and fact, using first person narrative.The genre is called 'interpretive journalism' in media science. It takes reporting a little further by not just informing but also trying to explain. The journalist's individual approach to the subject, and thereby his opinion, will be displayed.It was quite common up through the seventies, and is still used by some investigative journalists. Demands skills, though.
Originally posted by Aqualion:
In that case journalists around here do not have that skills :rolleyes:Thanks for background info Martin. I did not knew that genre goes all the way back to 1960s.
Originally posted by Aqualion:
Intent and accountability. A bad bartender will bring just as much chaos and destruction in his career as a terrorist who is good at what they do. A good bartender will become a legend.
Originally posted by Furie:
True.The whole joke goes likeQ:- What's the difference between a bartender and an international terrorist?A: – You can negotiate with the terrorist.I very much enjoyed being a bartender. And shortly after having been early retired in 2001, getting the social pension and spending a few years in rehab, I went right out into the restaurant business again, and worked as a bartender at the pub section of a rather fancy restaurant for some years. A recovering alcoholic tending a bar? Actually, not a bad idea at all.Then I got myself married. Again.Haven't had a job since….Don't ask…;)
Originally posted by Furie:
Now that's a good example of misinformation. There is nothing in Islamic law preventing a woman from driving.90% of Islamic law is stipulated in the Quran. The balance is patched together from Hadiths (anecdotes of people who were the acquaintances of Mohammad (saw)) or extrapolated from the combination of Hadith and Quran.As an example, the Quran prohibits the consumption of wine. However, it says nothing about whiskey, brandy or beer which were unknown in that region at the time. So it is by extrapolation that other alcoholic beverages are forbidden.So 90% of Islamic law can be researched as easily as reading a book. Therefore there is no reason for journalist to claim that something is Islamic law when it isn't as he can research it for himself.Islam is not like the Catholic Church where the incumbent Pope gets to tell you what you must believe or be excommunicated. :left:Muslims are expected to research and learn for themselves. The Imam is the community's chosen leader of prayer and he will usually be well educated about Islamic matters. But he is no dictator. The Quran is the primary guide and the a-Hadith covers details not included in the Quran. Anything not found in one of those two sources is open to speculation and hence cannot be classified as "Islamic law".
So "Imam" can roughly be translated as "Rabbi"?
Groovy.
Originally posted by derWandersmann:
Imam translates approximately to the term, "prayer leader." Although even the word "prayer" is not quite correct as, in this context, it's a reference to Salaah, which has no equivalent concept in English. ("dua" is more correctly translated as "prayer")"Rabbi" would be similar to "Moulana" as both translate roughly as "teacher."
In short,News = Story ≠ [Not Equal symbol] FactSuccessful reporting = sensationalismThanks for this very interestig post, Aadil :up:
Originally posted by Furie:
@Aadil: I believe our friend was making a joke there, about the general (not specifically Islam related) assumption, that women of all creeds, nations and races are impossible behind the wheel. I can't say, I disagree with that assumption. That would be speaking against my own experience.:whistle:
Originally posted by qlue:
You've just explained a principles of probably all worldwide religions, not only Islam. As I always like to say, the problem is not in religion but in people who interpret it. And in ignorance of the followers which is just a politically correct expression for low IQ – stupid people.The problem widens when government accept wrong interpretation of religion in order to keep its citizens obedient and under control. There you have a point where bad preachers and bad journalists mix. This is how most of religious wars start.
Originally posted by Aqualion:
Well there is an exception. If you ever find that need to get into a South African mini-bus taxi, pray that the taxi driver turns out to be female! :insane:
Originally posted by qlue:
And there is your mistake. This may be important to you but it's just a headline to the journalist. Thinking they'd read a book for research for a small article is ridiculous. They'll hit Google and use the first result that comes up, if that. Most will not research these days as the emphasis is one printing before anyone else has the story.Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off no end and I'm constantly calling people out for something in their specialist field that they have gotten wrong, or knowingly printed misinformation in order to get a story when things are slow.
Originally posted by gdare:
Amen – also on the stupidity part. Everyone – everyone – should think for themselves about what is right or wrong, and challenge everyone who's trying to dictate rules to another; what right do you have to do that – and if you are stronger than me, why do you tell me to do something that is blatantly wrong.I'm guessing there are some parts of Islam – here I'm guessing, I only know it to be true about the Christian version – that stimulate the acceptance of the leader's decision…Anyway – cheers on this post. Enjoyed it very much.
Originally posted by bentrein:
A good Muslim is supposed to model their lifestyle on the lifestyle of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). So, perhaps in that way you are correct. :sherlock:Originally posted by bentrein:
Thanks. :up:
Originally posted by qlue:
As everything in the spotlight, also His life has been misrepresented here in the west. I am struggling with a few things in this statement though. Note that I make the following in all respect, and am looking for an open discussion. I am in no way trying to change your mind (which I hope I won't be able to). I am looking to understand… Please don't hate me for my questions. I am ignorant on many things.I do believe your statement – that I quoted – is true; I've heard it many times before. Then I read this on the life of Muhammad – and many other sources that list pretty much the same thing.I did read a book or two – about religion – and one thing I understand is that the earliest teachings of the Islam are those of peace and caring; the latter so much so it was bordering on socialism. Care for the weak, share your bread… But then there's 619 modern era.One thing I understand straight away is – linking your statement and the above site – why so much violence comes from some of the world's Muslim communities. There's a lot of violence in His life.What I fail to see – but perhaps I'm blind, and I most certainly don't know all the details – is the moral high-ground in pretty much everything that happens to Muhammad, and His response to it, from pretty much the passing of his wife Khadijah.Don't get me wrong; I understand why the wars happened. I don't understand the moral high-ground in it. What I see are the actions of a man consumed by grief for the loss of His wife whom He obviously adored…Please understand that I am asking in all respect, and am trying hard not to make this comment into a cheap attack. Something that is easily done on most religions that I know of. I'm just trying to understand… How can I live like Him, yet not kill?
I'm not sure I really know how to answer your question. Around here, emphasis is put on understanding these events in context. I don't know what happens elsewhere. The article you linked to, for example, shows a strong bias that implies that no one ever accepted Islam except under duress. Arabic historical sources give a different story. :left:Just one ridiculous example;
Are these people suggesting that taxation is evil? Then should Muslims not pay taxes in Christian dominated countries?Christians and Jews were not required, under Muslim rule, to pay the Zakaat which was much more than the Jizyah that they were required to pay. Yet sources like the one you linked to never mention this. :left:I have been shown articles where Muslims are criticised for using "slaves" in historic battles between Muslims and Christian Crusaders.These articles almost never mention that the Arabic word "abdu" means both "slave" and "servant".They also do not mention that, under feudal law, a serf was required to fight on behalf of the lord of the land whether he wanted to or not. Basically, this is not considered "slavery" in such articles.The truth is, if you try hard enough and apply the same type of bias, you can depict any culture or religion as pure evil. Protestants have been using similar devices against Catholics for centuries. And most forms of racism are based on similar bias.
Originally posted by qlue:
But of course. But then, the truth will probably lie somewhere in between I guess.Originally posted by qlue:
Which is completely ridiculous; I fully concur. It's the pot calling the kettle black and such like. And you did not hear that from me.Originally posted by qlue:
Most certainly. Glad to see we agree on many points. Everyone wants the same thing: a safe home and shelter, and a place to be happy and/or raise happy children… Once we get around to realising that, truly deep down, I think we're a long way towards solving this planet's problems. Live and let live, and the like.Back to the top:Originally posted by qlue:
That's your reading, not mine. Quite a number of people must have accepted Islam voluntarily for any battle to have ever been won by the Muslims. Just a thought.But it's not a secret that there are people who were made a Muslim at the tip of a sword. The Islam isn't the only religion who's practised this tactic though…Originally posted by qlue:
I try too – and I see at the start the beginning of something really good, really beautiful. I maintain that at the core, the core message, every religion is good. It's the interpretation that usually sucks big time (forgive me, but I know you are not a particularly violent person :)). And fearing to become repetitive, once his first wife dies, all I see is a desperate man consumed by grief who – once again I beg forgiveness – loses sight of the core of his great work.
Any leader of any religion that falls under close enough scrutiny falls down, simply because they were men first before the divine was applied to them. It is the sum of their works that one is supposed to let influence them, not the details. The divinity, not the humanity. As an atheist I understand this in ways those in the religions cannot allow themselves to and it is both heartening and disheartening in the same breath.Originally posted by bentrein:
This, in all religions except those that have been heavily edited across history (Christianity for example), is a case of do as I say, not as I do. If we were to follow holy texts to the letter then the world would be a mish-mash of wars and hatred. People would be subjugated due to gender or race, slaves would be kept and those who were powerful enough to control the wording of holy books hundreds of years ago would be the only type of people allowed any power now.Should the good Christian tip over any church jumble sale stalls and scream "Not in my father's house?" simply because Jeshua did so? No, that would be rude and ever so slightly insane. Instead the books should offer a sense of goodness that pervades your life. Rather than follow the letter of the religion, one should follow the spirit of it instead. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you weren't deeply into self loathing as many people seem to be today." There, that's my holy scripture handed down to you from the mountains of the internet. Look deeply enough into my life and you'll find violence in my past amongst other things. I may not stand up to the kind of scrutiny that religious figures are given at all. But the fact remains that my scripture is one of the purest expressions of being a good person that you can find. Live it, love it, but don't go worshipping me for it or hating me over not living up to it myself before I'd even thought of it.
😆