The Stupid Things Journalists Say

I have been called opinionated in my time, although I would strongly argue the point.  Wait, on second thoughts, perhaps the label is more fitting than I'd like to admit.  And yet having  and expressing a strong opinion isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for writers.  Having a firm idea on where you stand on certain issues can give you a clear, strong voice that appeals to readers.  So having fully justified the existence of my soap box, let me drag it out for a second in order to rant about one of my pet peeves: irresponsible journalism.

Everyone has had one of those moments where they have put their foot in their mouth.  In a verbal conversation there is sometimes just too little time to engage the brain before the mouth starts talking.  Not so with writing.  I have very little patience for writers who don't seem to have done their homework, or worse still, pay little attention to the implications or impact of their work.

In the current media culture of fast, soft news, where headlines are more important than the actual articles, journalists often lean towards sensationalism.  While the issue of writers' responsibility has been touched on several times, the idea of any kind of central regulation of the media has been largely shunned due to freedom of speech.  I don't disagree, but in an perfect world writers should take enough pride in their work that there would be no need for such regulation.  I am, sadly, all too aware that we don't live in a perfect world.

In fact, what prompted this post (long held back behind gritted teeth) was witnessing this trend spread to the BBC News.  The British Broadcasting Corporation is the oldest broadcasting company in the world.  Those three initials once represented reliable, honest and hard hitting journalism.  A place only the "creme de la creme" of writers worked.  That cream now seems to have curdled somewhat.

Let me give you two examples of news the broadcast this week:

1.  A female criminal escaped from a high security prison and was at loose in the England somewhere.  An exciting enough story, surely, to not require filler material.  So I was shocked when I heard the phrase, "The woman, who weighs 25 stone..."   (That is roughly 350 lbs.) Had it been part of an overall, detailed description to warn people how to spot her I wouldn't have blinked, but that was the only physical description given.  What, was she dangerous because she used her weight as a weapon?  (My low growling began.)

2.  A recent study by nutritionists at a respected institution have presented a proposal to the UK government requesting that they increase the recommended calorie intake by 16% claiming that despite a rising rate of obesity, we are actually not consuming enough healthy food, and that our excess weight is due to eating foods with high fat and sugar content and low nutritional value.  How did the reporter decide to translate a 16% daily calorie increase to viewers?  "This equates to an extra cheeseburger a day for men, or two packets of crisps [chips] for women."  Not fruit.  Not wholegrain cereal.  Fast food and deep fried snacks. (My low, rumbling growl of annoyance escalated to some rather blue language shouted at the TV.)

Surely, if writing is your passion, you invest as much care and effort into your work as possible?  Surely, if you have managed to reach the peak of journalism by researching news items for one of the largest media corporations in the world you take that responsibility seriously?   Or am I dreaming of that perfect world again?

What are your thoughts?  Do you think about the reader when you write?  Do you always do the research?  Do you try to present the facts accurately and honestly?  Or do deadlines and paychecks dictate the standard of your work?