h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...most recent daftnesses have been (both from the same paper):
a girl who, apparently, 'had her stomach pierced' (tricky, that);
'Satanists' carving a 'six-pointed Satanic star' into someone they had killed.
Any more?

I don't think the having her stomach pierced is so bad. People know what they meant. Unless it is one of those cases where people have fallen on an iron fence.

... is what you are really discussing

"Incompetent editorial staff...is what you are really discussing"

No, sorry. Discussions about that are refined to certain forums as set out by the Modest Proposal.



"... was killed by 66 stabs. The number 66 has a special meaning to satanists."

They meant she'd had a navel piercing done. I have 2 of these, and they don't feature my stomach in any way.
See how confusing. I'm all for impaling whoever was responsible.

(Tube: trouble is, now some pathetic little mock-goth 13 yr old will believe that factoid, and carve it into their forehead. I spose sloppy journalism could therefore be used to weed out the fools.)

That'd be fair enough.
Maybe it'll teach the difference between goths and satanists....

Tube
somewhat dissatisfied with the media coverage of that current trial in Germany

One of my bugbears is when 'statistics' are quoted without any attempt to relate them to real life. For example, yesterday I saw an item on Ceefax news that stated that a survey has found that men are more generous to their partners than women are. Apparently, men spend an average of about £1,500 a year on their partner, whereas women only spend about £700 a year. (As this is a BBC site, and the item came from a BBC source, i.e., Ceefax, I shouldn't be breaching copyright.) Now, there's no room on Ceefax to quote the entire survey report, but the way the 'facts' were quoted failed to mention a couple of things:

1. £1,500 a year works out to about £5 a month. That's a bunch of flowers or a large box of chocolates once a week. OK, that's probably not what happens, but a man *could* do that kind of thing. What could a woman buy for a man on that regular a basis?

2. Men earn more than women, in some cases appreciably so, so it would be surprising if they *didn't* spend more on their partner.

I'm not blaming the BBC for sloppy reporting because, as I said, there isn't enough room on a Ceefax page to say more than they did. But this kind of reporting isn't confined to Ceefax. I've seen it in newspapers and magazines where there *is* room to report more fully and consider the implications. Give me a radio programme, like the BBC's 'Today' programme on Radio 4, where the broadcasters *do* consider the implications of the stories they report!

I'm suffering from brain-fade. Item 1. should have read '£1,500 a year works out at about £5 a WEEK'. Apologies!

I am a journalist.

I'm not sloppy, just a bit untidy.

I would hate to meet the poor woman who earns less money than I do.

And since I'm also a solo journalist, I'm also teh incompentnet eidotrial stff.

Now, where did I put those antidepressants?

Yeah, you can't get the guy a cordless drill for 5 a week. Unless it was part by part. But I think in general men don't expect to be showered in presents in a relationsship. Whereas women might.

Women might *like* to be showered with presents. However, if I was a man and my partner *expected* to be showered with presents, I'd dump her. Personally, I like the occasional small gift (it needn't even cost £5), or a bunch of flowers when I'm low. I don't *expect* them though (but it's lovely when I get them), and I wouldn't be happy if Richard was buying me things and I couldn't afford to buy him anything.

Time for a rant...

I do get quite upset about the general imprecision and poor fact-checking of journalists and/or editorial staff. Whenever there has been something in the news which I have had personal knowledge of, the facts as reported have been wrong, or at the very least, distorted.

Here's one that really annoyed me, and I've been meaning to get off my chest for about 2 years. It came from Radio 4's 'Today' programme (usually one of the more sensible news programmes).

The initial, headline style, report was
"A doctor failed to spot a tumour the size of a football in a patient's stomach".

When they got into the detail, it turned out to be more like:
1. A doctor failed to spot a tumour in one of his patients.
2. The tumour *subsequently* grew to the size of a *small* football.

So, the tumour was actually the size of a small football i.e. smaller than a football. AND it only grew to this size some time *after* the doctor had examined the patient.

In other words, the doctor failed to spot something that was smaller than something else that was in its turn smaller than a football!

The initial headline was therefore quite simply WRONG.

This either represents extreme sloppiness, or deliberate distortion of the facts for the purposes of sensationalisation. Either way, it's pretty appalling.

I always meant to complain to the BBC about this, and now I suppose I have. It's like a huge weight off my shoulders. Thankyou!

Stretchy.

I'm sorry, Cheerful Dragon. Truly I am. But what calculator are you using? My £5 per week on my husband would cost me considerably less than £1,500 - in fact, I don't mind saying I'd only spend £260 on him if I spent £5 for 52 weeks! But then I always was a cheapskate!

Now, if he were spending £30 per week on me, that would mount up to £1,560... but actually, I'd sooner we saved it for moving!

~~~

Sloppy journalism and sensationalism - it's all over the place, and I obsess about some of the headlines I see! But I can't remember any particular examples, sorry!

x x Fenny (UT)

Well, s'long as we're aware.
I would be more prepared to trust (real) Goths than self-proclaimed Satanists, since the latter are likely to be misguided yoofs with Issues. Whom nobody understands, and who want to be Diffrnt. I doubt real Satanists would behave half as daft as that. Besides, you have to have a sense of humour to join any movement started by a carnival showman.
The Local Paper is up in collective arms about some travellers who are occupying a green site near here. Apparently, they purchased the land and have parked there, also put up fences and paths (neatly, from the news pictures). Yet the Council (despite denying them a legal site) say that's not allowed cos they didn't get planning permission etc. and tried to move them, only a higher authority stopped them. They bought a fountain to console themselves and say it's not over yet. And the Local Paper, bless em, always refers to the travellers as 'Gipsies'. Which they are not, it being a term for a specific nomadic culture- not someone who has decided it would be nice to uproot. (I can see the attraction, personally.)
Uber-sloppy, as well as offensive.

Mandragora (extra points for use of 'uber')

Apologies for putting the wrong figure down. I did say I was suffering from brain-fade that day! What happened was that I was discussing the matter with Richard and we agreed that a man could *easily* spend £5 a week on flowers, whereas a woman couldn't buy anything for a man on a regular basis. The £5 figure got lodged in my brain and drove out the £30 per week I'd actually calculated.

As for the 'failed to spot a tumour the size of a football', anybody with any sense knows that's impossible. You'd have to be enormous to have a tumour inside you that big. I suspect that it was sloppy journalism for the sake of sensation. All too often, newspaper journalists report things in the way that is most likely to attract attention and cause a sensation. TV and radio journalists are less guilty of this, but it happens there too.

All stories regarding the internet

"Terrorists use internet to plan bombing" but you never see

"terrorists use Royal Mail to plan bombing" or "Terrorists use phones to plan bombing"

"Couple adopt baby via internent" simply because initial contact was online - all the rest of the dealings in the sad case the other year were by conventional means

"Cyber romeo kills 10" The Sun after a chap who was talking ON THE PHONE all night to someone he met online.

*credit to January edition Internet magazine*

CH