Common sense analysis of this, that and the other

Journalism or filler?

leave a comment »

Sure many have noticed that more and more news publishers are being lazy by replacing lengthy well researched articles with syndicated blogs and/or public submissions, many of which are not validated for accuracy. Surely journalism is about researching and authenticating any claims made in a story? Here in the Daily Telegraph, a photo claims to show some UFOs over London that were invisible to the naked eye.

(For some reason, the Comments feature has been disabled for the article. Am sure it would draw a lot of flack for similar reasons to those I cover here. On that subject, who at the various newspapers chooses whether to enable Comments below a story and what governs their decision?)


Here is what the reporter should have done:

a) Researched to see if anyone else had captured a similar image.
b) Contacted the authorities to check if any CCTV cameras had caught anything in the background.
c) Contacted airports to find out if anything had shown up on radar or been seen by pilots.
d) Asked if the person who submitted the image(s) had checked if there was a fault with their camera that could have superimposed the ‘UFOs’ on the photos.
e) The UFOs were really there, but using a cloaking device that only the camera’s image processing circuitry could reveal. (Interesting possibility! Hmmm…)

There is a solid difference between blogs (like this one), public submissions and press articles. The former two are either opinion or unverified witnesses, the latter is designed to be as close to the truth as is possible without the reader or viewer being on hand to authenticate what is claimed.

Why is this important? When the media cover far more serious matters (such as the Muddle East, the banking crisis, stem cell research or even genuine UFO sightings), it is vital that we get the truth, else lives may be lost, opinions may be innocently ‘twisted’ and concepts and beliefs unjustifiably tarnished.

Fight back club: Still thinking about this one. It’s all about differentiating opinion from fact from perceived fact from fluff. A tough one, unless you’re on the spot, in sound mind and ideally, in the company of witnesses who are also of sound mind.

As for my views on UFOs, when I get a mo that will be imported into the new ‘ON’ section of Vision Aforethought under the letter ‘U’. đŸ˜‰

Link © 2009 The Daily Telegraph.


Written by Oflife

March 21, 2009 at 8:52 pm

Posted in The media, UFOs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: