How often has the blogosphere been criticized by the mainstream media for not adequately researching stories, for being less than thorough, and for not checking facts? Way too often, I'd say. Well, check out this story.

From BreitBart.com:

A quote in a fake news release that was intended as an April Fool's joke ended up in a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times. The story in Tuesday's editions of the Times noted how successful the reintroduction of wolves had been 10 years ago, but said the predators remained controversial.

"In Wyoming, for example, Gov. Dave Freudenthal last April decreed that the Endangered Species Act is no longer in force and that the state 'now considers the wolf as a federal dog,' unworthy of protection," the story read.

The Times printed a correction Wednesday, acknowledging that the news release was a hoax.

"The reporter saw it on the Internet and had talked with the governor in the past, so she was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes that she thought it sounded authentic, and she didn't check, which she should have," Times Deputy Metro Editor David Lauter told the Casper Star Tribune.

Companion thoughts at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:24 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

The Daily Star (Lebanon) discusses a study of US newspapers by Dr. Ghazi Falah of the University of Akron, who focuses on the way Arabs and Muslims are portrayed by the American news media. Dr. Falah makes some astute observations, but draws some questionable conclusions.

With the vast majority of stories and photographs appearing in Western media from the Arab world pertaining to, or insinuating an environment of violence and conflict, readers are left with these impressions of the region.

"It is striking how much the editorial policies of the foreign [American] newspapers consulted for this study overlap with U.S. government positions and its geo-political interests in the Middle East."

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:58 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

The staff at the BBC has been issued new management guidance regarding the use of the terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism.' The BBC's governors believe that the Internet has eliminated differences between domestic and overseas audiences and, therefore, it's essential that the terms be used carefully.

From MediaGuardian.co.uk:

The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: "The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word 'terrorist' to describe the perpetrators."

"Careful use of the word 'terrorist' is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality ... that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences ... we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like 'liberate', 'court martial' or 'execute' in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacking', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' 'insurgent' and 'militant'."

The new guidance suggested using words such as "bomb attack" instead, or "bomber" or "assassin". [sic all]

Of course, this announced new guidance begs the question of what exactly is different from the way the BBC currently reports the news?

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:57 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

I believe it's Hustler magazine that does the "Girl Next Door" thing, right? I think we've found a new candidate:

MONCEAU-SUR-SAMBRE, Belgium (AP) — She was the typical girl-next-door — pretty daughter of a hospital secretary who grew up on a quiet street in this rust-belt town and finished high school before becoming a bakers' assistant.

I hear her eyes are blue.

One blue this way, one blue that way.

Some other girls next door she'll be swapping recipes with:

Erzsebet Bathory

Belle Gunness

Dorothea Puente

Just to name a few.

As far as I'm concerned, that USA Today article I linked up there takes the media coddling of terrorists to a new low. Just when you think they can't get any lower...

Background on this "girl next door" here. (Link whoring on your own blog, Rusty...sheesh, I thought I was shameless.)

CP@VAM

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:52 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.