How can news organisations get things so incredibly wrong?

Mark · 25-01-2007, 00:10

Up to this lunchtime, News agencies across the country were extolling the virtues of Microwave ovens for killing bugs on kitchen sponges. Here's an example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...562977,00.html

The BBC even showed a report in which a reporter put a kitchen sponge in a microwave oven and turned it on. Nice move.

By teatime, the story had taken a rather different turn, as this BBC article shows (this is the very same article that at lunchtime was extolling the above virtues - how things change):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6293735.stm

Well duh, of course it's a bloody dangerous idea and someone's already nearly killed themselves trying it. A 'damp' sponge won't contain nearly enough water to absorb the microwaves in a modern oven, so you'll either super-heat the sponge (with the possibility of causing a fire as a result), or slowly cook the microwave oven itself because the microwaves have to go somewhere.

I think this has to be one of the quickest U-turns by the media as a whole ever.

So, what do you think of this, and how much do you trust the media?

Darrin · 25-01-2007, 02:29

I personally think that both the reporter AND the paper that publish articles like that without proper research should be held liable. Same thing with articles about people. Charges of slander should be made against papers that print false information about people and the charges should be made to stick.

Darrin · 25-01-2007, 07:43

Well, in this case you're right. This one falls squarely on the UofA's shoulders.

But so often this is not the case. In my personal opinion, news reporters are often as bad, if not worse, than courtroom lawyers for snagging half-truths and partial facts and stretching them into nothingness.

Or leaving out important information that leaves the readers with the complete opposite impression of what really happened.

And maybe, just maybe if news reporters WERE held accountable for everything they reported, we might actually get some news, instead of 300 articles about whom the boy prince is dating and one article about what is actually going on in the world. And that one article only half right and missing 90% of the actual relevant information to the subject.

How many times have we had discussions over on OC where the only information we've had was what was in a news report? And the inevitable response of so many people was that, "We weren't there. We don't have the whole story so we can't really judge what happened" comes around. That says MOUNTAINS about the reporter's story in the fact that nobody can sum up what REALLY happened because the reporter didn't do a good enough job of giving the whole story. And ended up leaving out some rather crucial information that leaves the story in entirely the wrong light.

I guess I'm just too much of a perfectionist, but in my opinion if you're going to do a job that can have such a dramatic impression on the public, you better do it right or don't do it at all. And very seldom do I see it done even half-arsed, let alone right.

Mark · 25-01-2007, 11:27

Kitten, in most cases I'd agree with you. In this particular one, I don't.

I would hope we all know how dangerous microwave ovens can be if used incorrectly - there's enough warnings in most instruction manuals.

I don't know about other news organisations, but the BBC did actually state in their reports that the cloth should be damp. That doesn't mean a lot though - how damp?

Microwave ovens are designed for heating food. Period. It's not like they're some new technology that no-one knows about. They're well understood and the potential for problems if abused is well known. Even the 'bottom of the ladder' journalist probably has one and should know this.

So yes, as a generalisation, you're probably right, but when it comes to a story that, as in this case, could have resulted in people burning down their houses, a little more care doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Justsomebloke · 25-01-2007, 11:42

I think it's because they are motivated to sell papers or increase viewing figures rather than being motivated to inform people of all the wrongs and happenings in the world.
This is obviously down to there editors and share holders and not the journalists. If journalists thought they would improve there careers and job security by informing us of Facts and relevent world issues i am sure they would.

Mark · 25-01-2007, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitten_caboodle

Can you honestly say that the times article doesn't make it clear that it is a team of American researchers who have come up with the theory in controlled conditions?

No, I can't. Maybe it was just the BBC case that got me as that's the only one I saw 'live'. That mentioned the American researchers, but I don't recall anything about controlled conditions. Their reporter actually went ahead and did it - right there. As the (updated) BBC story said, there are just too many variables to have ever considered this safe.

And yes, I could see the heat pack thing coming

. I have one. I'm surprised at leaving it in for four minutes though - the one I have says 30 seconds. Having blown out a previous heat pack I tend to stick to what they say now.

Mark · 25-01-2007, 12:10

I accept the point about smaller news organisations, especially when they're just repeating verbatim something they've got 'down the wire' (indeed there are cases where this happens automatically - I've lost count of how many places I've seen trotting out the same story from Reuters or whoever). I can't hold them culpable for any of this - in that case it's clear cut where the problem lies, and it's elsewhere.

In cases where the news organisation absolutely has to check their stories (and all TV and Radio news outlets qualify), then I find myself somewhat disappointed that they don't pick up on this - a story that has obvious health and safety implications.

25-01-2007, 00:10	#1
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	How can news organisations get things so incredibly wrong? Up to this lunchtime, News agencies across the country were extolling the virtues of Microwave ovens for killing bugs on kitchen sponges. Here's an example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...562977,00.html The BBC even showed a report in which a reporter put a kitchen sponge in a microwave oven and turned it on. Nice move. By teatime, the story had taken a rather different turn, as this BBC article shows (this is the very same article that at lunchtime was extolling the above virtues - how things change): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6293735.stm Well duh, of course it's a bloody dangerous idea and someone's already nearly killed themselves trying it. A 'damp' sponge won't contain nearly enough water to absorb the microwaves in a modern oven, so you'll either super-heat the sponge (with the possibility of causing a fire as a result), or slowly cook the microwave oven itself because the microwaves have to go somewhere. I think this has to be one of the quickest U-turns by the media as a whole ever. So, what do you think of this, and how much do you trust the media?

25-01-2007, 02:29	#2
Darrin Dirteh Kitteh Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Hiding out in Mormon Country Posts: 1,629	I personally think that both the reporter AND the paper that publish articles like that without proper research should be held liable. Same thing with articles about people. Charges of slander should be made against papers that print false information about people and the charges should be made to stick. __________________ A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed "to whom it may concern".

25-01-2007, 07:43	#3
Darrin Dirteh Kitteh Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Hiding out in Mormon Country Posts: 1,629	Well, in this case you're right. This one falls squarely on the UofA's shoulders. But so often this is not the case. In my personal opinion, news reporters are often as bad, if not worse, than courtroom lawyers for snagging half-truths and partial facts and stretching them into nothingness. Or leaving out important information that leaves the readers with the complete opposite impression of what really happened. And maybe, just maybe if news reporters WERE held accountable for everything they reported, we might actually get some news, instead of 300 articles about whom the boy prince is dating and one article about what is actually going on in the world. And that one article only half right and missing 90% of the actual relevant information to the subject. How many times have we had discussions over on OC where the only information we've had was what was in a news report? And the inevitable response of so many people was that, "We weren't there. We don't have the whole story so we can't really judge what happened" comes around. That says MOUNTAINS about the reporter's story in the fact that nobody can sum up what REALLY happened because the reporter didn't do a good enough job of giving the whole story. And ended up leaving out some rather crucial information that leaves the story in entirely the wrong light. I guess I'm just too much of a perfectionist, but in my opinion if you're going to do a job that can have such a dramatic impression on the public, you better do it right or don't do it at all. And very seldom do I see it done even half-arsed, let alone right. __________________ A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed "to whom it may concern".

25-01-2007, 11:42	#5
Justsomebloke The Night Worker Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 5,228	I think it's because they are motivated to sell papers or increase viewing figures rather than being motivated to inform people of all the wrongs and happenings in the world. This is obviously down to there editors and share holders and not the journalists. If journalists thought they would improve there careers and job security by informing us of Facts and relevent world issues i am sure they would. __________________

25-01-2007, 11:27	#4
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Kitten, in most cases I'd agree with you. In this particular one, I don't. I would hope we all know how dangerous microwave ovens can be if used incorrectly - there's enough warnings in most instruction manuals. I don't know about other news organisations, but the BBC did actually state in their reports that the cloth should be damp. That doesn't mean a lot though - how damp? Microwave ovens are designed for heating food. Period. It's not like they're some new technology that no-one knows about. They're well understood and the potential for problems if abused is well known. Even the 'bottom of the ladder' journalist probably has one and should know this. So yes, as a generalisation, you're probably right, but when it comes to a story that, as in this case, could have resulted in people burning down their houses, a little more care doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

25-01-2007, 12:10	#7
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	I accept the point about smaller news organisations, especially when they're just repeating verbatim something they've got 'down the wire' (indeed there are cases where this happens automatically - I've lost count of how many places I've seen trotting out the same story from Reuters or whoever). I can't hold them culpable for any of this - in that case it's clear cut where the problem lies, and it's elsewhere. In cases where the news organisation absolutely has to check their stories (and all TV and Radio news outlets qualify), then I find myself somewhat disappointed that they don't pick up on this - a story that has obvious health and safety implications.