How the media report on fatalities.

[Pale Rider]

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) ?

Party leaders court the proprietors/editors, because the leaders also believe the influence of the paper is greater than it is.

There has been a bit of a change recently.

Everyone is a publisher now, so it is easier for political parties - or anyone else - to get their message across directly.

For example, when I wanted to have a brief look at the policies of a couple of parties at the last election, I looked at their manifestos on their websites, rather than rely on a summary from a media outlet.

 

[Simontm]

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.

Hah. I wouldn't be the editor of my current job that's for sure!

It can be an accident of timing, after all The Sun was a left-wing paper prior to Murdoch.

 

[Pale Rider]

[QUOTE="Simontm, post: 3785283, member: 37586"
It can be an accident of timing, after all The Sun was a left-wing paper prior to Murdoch.[/QUOTE]

Spot on.

Take cock-up - or simple chance - over conspiracy every time and you won't go far wrong.

 

[Simontm]

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.

less than 2 million people read the Sun and, for example, of them less than 40% backed The Conservatives in 1992 (if memory serves). Papers influence the Westminster circle far more than the outside world. I've been a journalist for nigh on 20 years and graduated in politics and stuff that fascinates me and the bubble bore the heck out of a lot of people.
Far more should be examined in terms of aspirations, family and friendship pressures rather than the influence of media.

Though the growth of social is going to be an interesting study in a few years time.

 

[NorvernRob]

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?

So how exactly would you want it reported? 'Cyclist killed by car driver'? What sense would that make? Did the driver get out of the car and beat the cyclist to death? It's not clear which is why it doesn't make sense to say it.

It doesn't just apply to cyclists, for instance:

"Motorist killed in collision with train' would be used, rather than 'train driver kills motorist', which again isn't clear at all. For all we know reading that the train driver might be nowhere near a train.

I think it is just paranoia.

 

[hatler]

I think it is just paranoia.

Seriously ?

 

[SD1]

I see that driver has been jailed for 21 months.
http://road.cc/content/news/156568-...-checking-whatsapp-messages-leading-collision

GC

Well the courts don't seem to be bias.although the hit and run bit might have been worth a bit more than 21 months.

 

[SD1]

[QUOTE 3784715, member: 9609"]Glen campaigns tirelessly for better justice for cyclists, and when he stays focussed he is very good at it, (unfortunately he regularly looses the plot and has an unpleasant out burst) As cyclists we could do with many more "grown up" versions of Glen.[/QUOTE]

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?

Where does he campaign other than Cycle Chat?
Calling parents child abusers for making their children wear a cycle helmet, just means nobody will pay any attention to him anyway.

 

[Hip Priest]

Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.

 

[SD1]

Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.

And there is nothing unusual there. Cars pull out all the time at junctions in front of other cars.

 

[Hip Priest]

And there is nothing unusual there. Cars pull out all the time at junctions in front of other cars.

Thanks, I'll let his widow know.

 

[Lemond]

Mr Forger is spot-on. Lad at work was killed when 'his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction'. What actually happened was the driver pulled out of a side road into his path whilst texting. Boils my piss.

Perhaps when the journalist wrote that line of copy, the circumstances of what happened weren't known?

 

[Simontm]

Just had a thought - but at what point after an incident have reports like the motorcycle above been aired/published?
Until and unless there is a case proving liability, 'collision' is legally neutral providing no blame. If I was writing something prior to a court case, I probably would write 'collision' rather than twat on phone 'hit motorcyclist whilst exiting side road on phone'.
If these are after a case, then yes there should be some thought put into the language used just as there has to be before.

 

[Lemond]

Just had a thought - but at what point after an incident have reports like the motorcycle above been aired/published?
Until and unless there is a case proving liability, 'collision' is legally neutral providing no blame. If I was writing something prior to a court case, I probably would write 'collision' rather than twat on phone 'hit motorcyclist whilst exiting side road on phone'.
If these are after a case, then yes there should be some thought put into the language used just as there has to be before.

Exactly. Problem is, that kind of thinking doesn't fit too well within the closed ideology echo chamber this place seems to be. Dare to not share the view that drivers are killers, the media are anti cyclist and the police bend over backwards to get drivers off whenever a bike is involved, and you get called an "apologist for drivers who kill" and other such hysterical nonsense.

 

[Simontm]

It would be perfectly reasonable to write this, if it is factual.

Uh-huh. Implied liability, wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole