How the media report on fatalities.

[anothersam]

Zzzzzzzz. Same old guff from GF.

The issues involved are old and the OP bringing them up is the same as often posts about them, but it's hardly guff. It's important. Sometimes important stuff puts people to sleep.

The media thrive on narratives (i.e., stories), like the rest of us; and they get to choose how the conversation is framed by virtue of the fact they have always bought ink by the barrel.

Poor journalism is just poor journalism. You've got to be some kind of fruit loop to read it and see conspiracy or an agenda.

The media, particularly in these days of massive conglomeration and moneybags corporate ownership, most assuredly does have certain agendas. Stories are often not reported as a result of original investigation, but press releases from interested parties and other "news" outlets. Certain stories turn into feeding frenzies which by definition involve endless repetition, which works like a (lucky?) charm. I'm not sure what brand of cereal you have to be to swallow everything you're fed: Frosted Flakes? If only for the crowd-pleasing alliteration.

Spoken like a true fruit loop.

Repetition. So you see how it works.

I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them.

Gentle or otherwise, it's constant and relentless.

 

[raleighnut]

Cyclists generally do not 'collide' with cars but are involved in a collision with one far too often (Generally as the 'collidee' rather than the collider)
I agree that the journalistic 'slant' on this is that cyclists shouldn't be there to be hit.

 

[hatler]

Yup, not a conspiracy (as in, there isn't a hidden cabal of journos meeting regularly to agree the language to use for these stories), but there's clearly a very stilted point of view which is both widespread and wholly out of order. Three cheers to GF for continually trying to raise the profile of this critical subject.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Journalists (and some police) often use language which serves to diminish blame from the driver or indeed omit the presence of the driver altogether. A perfect example is the use of the word 'clipped' when referring to fatally striking a cyclist, or phrases like "the car lost control", removing all suggestion that there might be someone behind the wheel with responsibility for its control.

If you want a measured review of this widespread bias I can do no better than recommend this blog on the subject.

GC

 

[raleighnut]

Journalists (and some police) often use language which serves to diminish blame from the driver or indeed omit the presence of the driver altogether. A perfect example is the use of the word 'clipped' when referring to fatally striking a cyclist, or phrases like "the car lost control", removing all suggestion that there might be someone behind the wheel with responsibility for its control.

If you want a measured review of this widespread bias I can do no better than recommend this blog on the subject.

GC

Good link.

 

[Pale Rider]

An incident report should avoid any suggestion of blame.

The phrases used are purposefully neutral.

Statements by police officers, deemed to be made on behalf of the chief constable, are covered by qualified privilege and can be reported without any fear of legal comeback.

This would often be a witness appeal where the report would inevitably suggest blame on whichever party had cleared off in a hit and run.

A court report is a different animal in which what is said in court can be accurately reported.

The points made in the blog linked by @glasgowcyclist cannot be assessed unless you attended the inquest on which the blog is commenting upon.

In the nicest possible way, the journalist couldn't care less either way, it's just a matter of getting the job done.

Thus the language complained of by the blogger will almost certainly have been what was said at the inquest.

There is no point in the journalist putting his title and himself at risk of legal proceedings by inserting anything that wasn't said at the inquest.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

the journalist couldn't care less either way,...

There's part of the problem, the journalist couldn't care less; he's lazy and churns out crap that conforms to stereotypical thinking and thereby perpetuates it.

...it's just a matter of getting the job done

The job is to be accurate and fair.

The points made in the blog linked by @glasgowcyclist cannot be assessed unless you attended the inquest on which the blog is commenting upon.

It wasn't only about the reporting of the evidence at the inquest stage, it deals with the initial reporting of RTCs themselves.

See also https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/when-words-collide/

GC

 

[Simontm]

Yup, not a conspiracy (as in, there isn't a hidden cabal of journos meeting regularly to agree the language to use for these stories), but there's clearly a very stilted point of view which is both widespread and wholly out of order. Three cheers to GF for continually trying to raise the profile of this critical subject.

Actually we are, I'm just a masochist

In all seriousness, a lot of the language will come from the summation, or the police PR rather than the journo themselves. They will pick up on the language being spoken to them.

Thanks to the likes of All the Presidents Men, there seems to be an idea that we are crusaders setting the tone for the agenda etc etc. In reality, it is a long-houred, poorly paid trade, gradually being taken over by those with trust funds rather than the skill as it is hard to sustain a life when starting out on the wages or 'internships' that exist.

24-hr news means a high churn rate of news and a large reliance on PR but at the end of the day, if the reader doesn't like it, the reader goes away. The Sun doesn't win it, the Sun reflects the prejudice of its readers - that's how it makes money.

 

[hatler]

In part maybe but it also shapes and reinforces those viewpoints

I don't think it's either just one, or just the other, it's surely a bit of both. But the statement of a prejudice leads to its reinforcement, and in turn to an increased credibility, which leads to its re-statement, ad infinitum. Auto-catalytic if you will.

 

[Simontm]

I don't think it's either just one, or just the other, it's surely a bit of both. But the statement of a prejudice leads to its reinforcement, and in turn to an increased credibility, which leads to its re-statement, ad infinitum. Auto-catalytic if you will.

Wanted to reply to both you and @User Yes there is a reinforcement cycle but people's prejudices change and it is a good editor who can swing round at the speed of social thought. Some of the stuff the Sun thought would be acceptable to print in the 80s would not be now.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the Telegraph, it is trying to push a change through online - Buzzfeed style lists etc - which its readership (at least those that comment) hate. It is slowly suffering and is trying to up the pace of change and dragging its readership with it and falling between two stools.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Sun doesn't win it, the Sun reflects the prejudice of its readers - that's how it makes money.

When a General Election is called, the first task in The Sun newsroom is to predict who will win, then back that party.

The idea is to back a winning horse not a losing one.

It's reflected kudos - back the winner and the paper - and its readers - are seen as winners.

Feelgood factor all round.

Back the loser, and you are all losers.

 

[subaqua]

I don't think that the reporting of cyclists' KIAs are part of a conspiracy but there does seem to be a gentle car-centric slant to a lot of them. If I was feeling paranoid about it I might think that the subtle message is "If you ride a bike on the roads, you are partially to blame if a couple of tonnes of steel does you some major harm. You would only have a dinged wing if you were in a sensible vehicle like a car".

"Man killed in collision with handgun bullet in Tottenham pub", anybody?

it wasn't in a pub , it was at the side of the road

 

[Pale Rider]

There's part of the problem, the journalist couldn't care less; he's lazy and churns out crap that conforms to stereotypical thinking and thereby perpetuates it.

GC

What I mean by couldn't care less is the journalist reporting an inquest has no view either way.

The hearing is clearly important to those directly involved, but to the experienced journalist it is a routine job, he will have done dozens, if not hundreds of inquests before.

Thus if a witness says "the man bit the dog", that's what goes in.

If the witness says: "the dog bit the man", that's what goes in.

 

[hatler]

Wanted to reply to both you and @User Yes there is a reinforcement cycle but people's prejudices change and it is a good editor who can swing round at the speed of social thought. Some of the stuff the Sun thought would be acceptable to print in the 80s would not be now.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the Telegraph, it is trying to push a change through online - Buzzfeed style lists etc - which its readership (at least those that comment) hate. It is slowly suffering and is trying to up the pace of change and dragging its readership with it and falling between two stools.

I can see where the ability to identify a shift in public opinion is what can make an editor successful. Especially so if the new trend is counter to the one they have thus far promoted. But how does that shift occur ? If I could answer that I wouldn't post it here but would transfer all my energies into the political sphere instantly.

 

[hatler]

When a General Election is called, the first task in The Sun newsroom is to predict who will win, then back that party.

The idea is to back a winning horse not a losing one.

It's reflected kudos - back the winner and the paper - and its readers - are seen as winners.

Feelgood factor all round.

Back the loser, and you are all losers.

And there's no hint of, say, the Sun's proprietor just possibly sounding out the parties to see which of them might provide the most lucrative business environment should that party win (where the result is in the balance) ?