Don’t be silly – why would they? They are just professional journos doing their job to get the right information out to us as quickly as possible.
Well, that is what they would have you believe. We have seen – and will see more, attacks on the bloggers and ‘citizen media’ both by ‘professional’ journalists and politicians. Hazel Blears come to mind and then the Mirror piece about bloggers being stuck in the basement wanting real jobs in newspapers.
While that isn’t the case we can look at how ridiculous journos are – take a look at the linked blog. The opening is well worth the read on its own – but, as always, there is more.
The Mail says that:
First we have some inevitable scare headlines from the Daily Mail about the cervical cancer vaccine in the English Edition. Endure them, the punchline is worth the effort. “Revealed: The serious health concerns about the cervical cancer jab” “Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination” “Twelve-year-old girl paralysed ‘after being given cervical cancer jab’” “How safe is the cervical cancer jab? Five teenagers reveal their alarming stories” That’s enough.
But get this. In Ireland, where the government refused to fund the vaccine, the Daily Mail are campaigning – vigorously – for the jab. Apparently it’s lifesaving: “Join the Irish Daily Mail’s cervical cancer vaccination campaign today” “Europe will shame FF into providing Ireland’s life-saving cervical cancer jabs” “Ditching cancer vaccine is a big step back, says expert” “Health campaigners in Ireland take fight for cancer jabs to Washington” “Cervical cancer vaccine for Ireland’s girls: online poll slams decision to pull funding”.
All linked on that blog – go look.
Without having a real dig at those who write and get paid – by advertising – why would a professional jouno simply lie? Or is it artistic impression?
I, personally, don’t mind that you have a right-wing hack hacking away to bring about their kind of political compass – but if that is the case, then they should say so – I’ll admit here that I am left-wing, and a liberal, there you go, not that frigging hard is it? Or do the advertisers have a real say in what goes into the paper – the real content? If the latter is the case then the journalist isn’t writing the story, the advertiser is – the journo is the one who does the ghost writing and the proof reading.
Obviously it is all about advertising space and getting paid – be damned with the truth.
Scare those who read your paper to death! Or not, depending on the country you are writing the story for. Is this the real reason journalists are a little worried about the internet? Anyone can find out – if they so wish – whether you are actually telling the truth.
And now science has proven these sites are a moral threat. “Facebook and Twitter ‘make us bad people’” said the Metro. The Telegraph was graver: “Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values, scientists warn.” “Twitter can make you immoral, claim scientists” was the Mail headline. “Social networks such as Twitter may blunt people’s sense of morality, claim brain scientists. New evidence shows the digital torrent of information from networking sites could have long-term damaging effects on the emotional development of young people’s brains.”
“Thank you for your inquiry [the other blog]. As you can see if you read our study, we made no connection whatsoever with Twitter. Some writers did make that connection but it is not ours. There is no mention whatsoever of Twitter or of any social network in our study. We have nothing whatsoever to say about them.”
So, if not a health warning – what kind? A bullshit warning?