Here is Lizette's diatribe in Italics, wich I am going to disect with my own view and comments in Blue Bold and with examples if I can... not like her with no examples just vague refrences, glaring errors will be underlined...I just wonder why she had to defend her ilk so vehemently? Usually that is a sign that something was not Cosher...
A somewhat irritated hospital spokesperson last week said how "some media" reported incorrect facts about FW de Klerk's condition and his illness.
Where did the "FW has died" story come from?http://www.mweb.co.za/news/?p=sa_article&i=169735seems to be the only refrence to this...
A somewhat more irritated SAA pilot this week spoke to a news programme, purely to "rectify" all the incorrect facts "some media" perpetuated in the reporting on the alleged hijacking of a SAA plane.
Are you sure this was a SAA pilot or spokesperson? Still trying to find the exact article by the way...http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=49&fArticleId=3300793The bashing of the police in this story in the way they handled the situation using SOP in this type of situation, "The cops were manhandling" angle, give me a break... everyone was a suspect at that time and this is SOP world wide... don't people watch reality TV? Oh I forgot... TV is Fiction...http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1953682,00.html
It sounds as if the media is just too stupid to get it right. And that our spokespeople and pilots think they have a licence to slam the media.
Yes they have when the media talks bullshit! (The Stuck on Stupid episode and personal experience springs to mind.)
Of course, each to their own. They can criticise the media as much as they want. But they should also get their facts right, and not only do the easy thing which is to play the "blame the media game". We're not stupid, you know.
Why do they have to when the media does not even get it right, if it was done right from the start the critics would have to keep their yaps closed?
The fact is, "some media" who reported certain facts about FW's condition got those facts from the family spokesperson. They did not thumbsuck the facts - the media would not do that. They would not jeopardise their own credibility.
But they did not verify the facts before publishing it as gospel did they? oh by the way what was that about Dan Rather and tumbsucking?
Also, the "untruths" that were reported after the alleged hijacking could all be traced to sources. Once again, the media did not thumbsuck. They got the information from a variety of sources. And if those sources have a different version to that of others, then it's their version, and not a question of the media being so pathetic as to get it all wrong.
What "untruths"? Why were thes facts not cross checked before publishing?
Please, give us more credit than that.
Well... you guys keep stepping in it and publishing it as gospel!
Trained professionals
Mainstream media have trained professionals, some with more, some with less experience. And as in any other profession, mistakes happen. Famously, doctors bury their mistakes; yet journalists display theirs on their front pages, for all the world to see.
The HASTY publishing of half baked stories just for a scoop has disproved this time and time again, in most professions one has to cross check and double check before taking your work upstairs.
That's of course also why we need to be even more professional in everything we do. Do our damnedest to get it right. But if a spokesperson give us information, or eyewitnesses give their version of what they experienced, don't blame the media if it is not exactly what happened according to your facts, or your version of events.
Once again we get to that irritating need to DOUBLE CHECK, it is "gives us information" not "give us"... was your proofreader on leave! Some professional!
No media would willingly publish untruths. Credibility is, ultimately, the only honour left. And no media institution will sacrifice that. Otherwise you may just as well close your doors.
Biased arab media et al, I really do not have space or time to even go there! Please use Google... (sarcasm intended)
If journalism is the "first rough draft of history", of course we need to get it right. Rather help the media in our quest to reflect, and represent, our world as it is happening every day, than try and aim cheap blows at us because we're an easy target.
Well... if they get it Right first time would there be cheap shots?
Just think about it: every day your newspaper is created all over again - as is your news bulletin on the hour, and in terms of the new media, it's reflected on your screen almost as it is happening.
And in the rush to publish the next scoop facts get ignored time and time again?
Imagine the effort it takes to get the facts represented in a cohesive, contextual, chronological way.
Been doing a BRILLIANT job of that lately...
Unlike that specific brand of baked beans that's the same can of baked beans every time you open it, a news brand has to be recreated from scratch every single round of its frequency.
Recreated? I distrust the word "recreated" here? I thougt the idea was to portray events that have happened not recreate them, that sounds so Hollywood.
As an editor said in a different context: not a candy bar and not a bar of soap, but a product. And one that has to be put together by verifying and collecting information, putting it through the various production processes according to the medium, and presenting it eventually to you, the news consumer.
Been doing a BRILLIANT job of that lately once again... and since when is a bar of soap or candy not a product? Also to call the public a cusumer when it comes to news is way out of context... news is not a consumer item but since the Media has made it one it becomes subject to the demands of a consumer product... what sells the product? Sensation and Speculation... need I say more? Dont forget the advertising revenue either from selling a scoop...
And, yes, we don't want praise for the job we do and the job we love. But please don't make us out for ignoramuses."
Oh yeah... what do you do it for then, the Moolah? and by the way... Joe Public is not an inoramus either... Just do your job properly and we will get along fine and maybe, just maybe start believing what is put out in the media again...I know this is just a commentary collum posted by a Journalist Lecturer but once again proving that they are Lazy... I would at least have posted "links" to the "alledged" articles she is so irritated with... I see a gaping wound in the foot here...
This may be expanded if any further FACTS surface.
This is the manual for my new Kodak C340... thank goodness the CD's are not in Cyrillic! Otherwise I am quite chuffed with what I got... a 5megapixel Camera with 3x optical zoom and 16meg onboard, plus a 128meg card and bag came to R1199.00! Sometimes it helps to swist arms and compare prices... just a pity we did not check the manual when we did the checklist... fortunately it is a doddle to figure out what everything does, I am not a total newbie when it comes to digital cameras...
First he took a picture of Dutchess next to her heater...
Then me getting warm...
