Why We Should Treat Headlines With Suspicion

[Sukerkin]

I have noticed a growing trend in recent years for newspaper and other media's headlines to be more and more detached from the contents of the actual body of the articles to which they relate. Even the normally reliable BBC has been afflicted by this creeping sensationalist malaise.

However, this one was particularly fishy :angel:

The Telegraph ran this headline:

[h=1]"Just 100 cod left in North Sea"[/h]
However, the actual number turns out to be somewhat larger ... of the order of half a billion cod in the North Sea! :lol:. A classic example of why, sometimes, journalists should not be allowed out without their mothers who can tell them off when they are either just making things up or radically failing to understand something that requires a certain degree of scientific or technical knowledge.

Here is the examination of the mis-assessment by the Open Universities "More or Less" statistics programme:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19755695

 

[Tez3]

At least it's a more palatable headline than 'Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster' or 'Double Decker Bus Found on Moon'.
The cod headline however would have gone unnoticed in Yorkshire as they don't eat cod here because it carries worms...

 

[Sukerkin]

Firstly ... ewwww! :chuckles:.

Please don't mention that again as I am presently rediscovering a love of fish that I have been averse to since being traumatised by getting a fish bone stuck in my throat as a little lad (grandad hoiked it out using a pair of long-nosed pliers from his cobblers toolbox). :lol:.

My point tho' is not ludicrous headlines from papers only fit to wrap fish and chips. It is headlines that are at best inaccurate and at worst the inverse of what the story actually is. It's enough to make you believe in a dis-information conspiracy .

 

[arnisador]

I can do without cod!

 

[granfire]

Firstly ... ewwww! :chuckles:.

Please don't mention that again as I am presently rediscovering a love of fish that I have been averse to since being traumatised by getting a fish bone stuck in my throat as a little lad (grandad hoiked it out using a pair of long-nosed pliers from his cobblers toolbox). :lol:.

My point tho' is not ludicrous headlines from papers only fit to wrap fish and chips. It is headlines that are at best inaccurate and at worst the inverse of what the story actually is. It's enough to make you believe in a dis-information conspiracy .

yep, dis-information conspiracy!

 

[Tez3]

Headlines are there to grab attention, a bit like a newpaper on the shelf whistling and going 'oi read me'! There have been some funny ones and some appalling ones like the Sun's 'The Truth' when they accused the Liverpool fans of causing the deaths at Hillsborough which all these years later has been proved not to be true. I didn't understand tbh the sheer pain this had caused but my son in law is from Liverpool and explained, it really is a tragedy which was compounded by the newspaper's campaign against the city. Of course Thatcher, the police and a few others are also to blame but the feeling in Liverpool is such that the paper hardly sells there.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...oday-justice-starts-tomorrow-100252-31825295/

 

[oftheherd1]

One of my pet peaves is on the TV news. Every other story seems to be 'breaking news,' or 'a developing story.' The local news radio, WTOP and some TV has a habit of telling us a story on whatever, is 'coming up.' They forget to mention it's coming up next half hour.

When/if I want sensationalism, I know where to find it. I don't expect to get it from newscasters who call themselves professionals.