Why do journalists try to sensationalize at the expense of truth?
Dempublicents
02-09-2004, 23:52
The headline: "Singapore bans cloning."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/09/02/singapore.cloning.reut/index.html
So, of course, I get ticked off - knowing, as I do, the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. And to find out which one they are talking about, I have to go almost to the bottom of the freaking article.
So, since most people don't read entire articles anyways, they've got their big pretty sensational headline, and most people who read that headline come away with a complete misconception about what the law actually says.
I'm all for "selling papers" and such - that's what they're in the business for. But for God's sake, don't do it at the expense of actually reporting.
Peasant peons
02-09-2004, 23:55
Yes they do.
Hardly a big surprize.
Journalism uses sensationalism.
Film at eleven.
Jello Biafra
03-09-2004, 00:28
Because it's more profitable to sensationalize than to tell the truth.
Because it's more profitable to sensationalize than to tell the truth.
Muh-ney.
Cannot think of a name
03-09-2004, 00:36
I think the response is almost scarier than the fact, we are complacent with it, 'eh, who cares-people are mis-infromed, frightened and now making mass decisions. What's for lunch?' It is something we should be worried about. RIF.
As a sidenote, I used the 'Dolly' story to sort out which newspaper to read. One told the story of how it was pharmicutical(sp) researchers who took something like 17 generations of sheep before they could get one that produced the chemical they needed in the mammary glands and decided it would be easier to remake that sheep than to go through the generations, and that sheep are vastly different from humans so cloning one is only a small step and was in no way ment to be the first step in a clone army or anything.
The other paper was more along the lines of "THEY CLONED SHEEP!!!! MICHAEL JORDAN IS NEXT!!!!!!" (I'm serious about the Jordan reference, the paper seemed determined that the Chicago Bulls where going to be at the forefront of the cloning wave in order to dominate Basketball with clone Jordans. And this is a serious, regular non-tabloid Newspaper...)
Singapore's practically fascist. I'm surprised they didn't ban it earlier.
Nowhere Place
03-09-2004, 00:54
Of course, the paper only goes with what line they think is best. I guess they thought that "Singapore Bans Cloning" sounded better than "Singapore Bans Reproductive Cloning". In journalism, they like to keep things short, and to the point (screw the "sweet" part). Besides, less words=less money spent in the long run.
Ratings. Money. Caring more about having people read them than furthering the ideals of truth. Appeasing the owners who are not, themselves, journalists.
Dempublicents
03-09-2004, 05:19
Singapore's practically fascist. I'm surprised they didn't ban it earlier.
See? This is the type of misconception that is propagated when the press scews up.
Singapore, while extremely strict in most of their laws, has one of the most liberal policies on stem cell research and therapeutic cloning in the world. But the press wanted something to sound big and bad and controversial, instead of reporting the truth. They did the same thing when the Korean team successfully cloned a human embryo.
It just bothers me because they are just adding to the confusion on an issue the majority of people already have no understanding of. And it is an important issue on which the public should not be misled.
Dempublicents
03-09-2004, 05:20
Of course, the paper only goes with what line they think is best. I guess they thought that "Singapore Bans Cloning" sounded better than "Singapore Bans Reproductive Cloning". In journalism, they like to keep things short, and to the point (screw the "sweet" part). Besides, less words=less money spent in the long run.
It isn't "to the point" if you never get the point across.