Do you hate journalists?
No – I’m training to be one. I just hate it when half-truths, lies, or statements unsupported by evidence are flung around the media, because that’s the opposite of what journalism should be.
I understand that reporters don’t have sole control over what’s done with what they write – how it’s edited, its prominence in the newspaper, the headline, or any photographs. I try to limit criticism of individual journalists to when it looks like a statement is simply false or unsupported by the evidence.
What makes you so sure you’re right?
I’m rarely entirely sure. See here for an example of me admitting I’m wrong. I certainly don’t think I’ve got all the answers; I just have the time and inclination to dig into these things. If you think I’ve made a mistake then leave a comment or email me – I’ll reply whatever I decide, and will correct any error quickly and prominently. Y’know, like newspapers are supposed to.
You’ve just read to the end of the story and copied the last paragraph!
Sometimes! The thing is, some newspapers decide upon their story then tack on a response from the council/school/police force no matter what it says. The burden of proof is on the newspaper making the claim – of course the subject of the article might be lying, but it’s not up to them to show they’re not. So if the rebuttal is plausible and the story gives no supporting evidence (an outraged quote doesn’t count), the newspaper hasn’t done its job and probably doesn’t know whether its account is true.
The other thing that always throws me about PC gone mad stories where the organisation disputes the facts in the last paragraph is this. If a certain organisation is so keen to bend over backwards to please/appease a minority, why would it then lie about it? Surely it’d want to make it as clear as possible to that minority that it’s supporting them/caving in to their demands?
Unless, of course, you think the organisation is in cahoots with the minority. In which case we’ve entered a whole new level of crazy.
Why do/don’t you write about this topic/newspaper? Are you just one of those political bores who rubbishes anything that doesn’t suit your worldview?
I don’t want to make this a political blog, but particular types of stories in particular newspapers are more likely to catch my eye and make me investigate a bit. So I’ll focus a lot on, say, the Mail and Express, partly because they’re more likely to be talking rubbish and partly because I just dislike their style and politics. But I’m not averse to having a go at the BBC, Guardian, or Independent if they deserve it, and once I’ve decided to look into a story I’ll try to treat it the same no matter its origin.
If I don’t write about something that’s obviously bollocks either I haven’t seen it or someone else has taken it apart better than I could. The links to your right are all worth reading for this, or you can follow media feed on Twitter, which retweets posts from various media bloggers. If there’s something you really want to be looked into, let me know!
I don’t have regular access to the Times website at the moment.
Are you a blogger or a journalist?
It might only be me who makes this particular distinction or finds it useful, but here we go – definitions all my own.
- A journalist writes at least semi-regularly for one or more media organisations, and is usually paid.
- A blogger writes on their own website/page as and when it suits, usually for free.
- Journalism is the practice of finding and verifying facts and setting out those facts in their appropriate context.
Clearly, if you use those definitions, not all journalists do journalism while some bloggers do. So I’d say I’m a blogger who does journalism.
These are fairly rough categories, and there’s some fuzziness. It’s also a shame that journalists and journalism are so similar (we need new words). But as a broad and brief explanation of my thoughts here, that does it.
One way this blog differs from a newspaper is that I don’t contact the media/journalists I write about before posting. That’s not ideal, but I hope I at least partly make up for it by being honest about mistakes.
How can I spot rubbish stories?
There’s no hard and fast rule, but certain topics are often good sources of tat. Anything to do with political correctness, human rights, health and safety, any sort of official statistics, surveys, and think-tank reports could usually do with a once-over. They might have been properly conducted/reported, but there’s no harm in checking.
I always get suspicious – maybe unfairly – if I’m not told the exact source of figures or a story. It’s a decent idea to use reports of ‘rising crime’ etc. to alert you to the fact there’s some new data out and then look at the data yourself, rather than accepting the summary you’re given. If you can’t find the data, try contacting the organisation referred to in the article.
If it’s a particularly incredible incident (an odd decision by a judge, some crazy council initiative, or most PC gone mad stories), try to find a report in the local paper. They’ll often have some information or quotes the nationals left out, and that can be key. Local newspapers need to stay on-side with their readers far more than nationals do, so they usually carry any information that might be inconvenient for the story.
Remember: if you couldn’t make it up, someone probably did.
