How the media report on fatalities.

[Goonerobes]

[QUOTE 3788101, member: 45"]"His bike collided with"

"a collision between a car and a bike"

See the difference? Both use the word "collision" but only one implies blame.[/QUOTE]

Umm, actually they don't, one uses the word "collided".

 

[Markymark]

the media also do this with

Immigration
Asylum seekers
People on benefits
Teenage mums
Travellers
Alternative religion
Etc,

Cyclists aren't beubg singled out. In fact it is minor compared to the wholesale discrimination perpetuated to some.

It's how the media makes money. By appealing to some and bring controversial to gain readers for advertising

 

[stoatsngroats]

An interesting thread, but one which argues the (in)delicate points of reporting correspondents, whom have particular views which skew their own angle one way other. This angle will direct the reader (listener/viewer) in a particular way, and will sometimes be blatant, other times subliminally, and very rarely (these days) without dramatic or sensational emphasis. the perception is that the 'public' have a need to be guided in what to think, or what feelings to have as a result of the report. It appears that we can't make our own minds up, and need to be led.

Facts are rarely reported without this personally judged impression being included, and judgements by the population will always therefore be 'misinformed'.

 

[Gasman]

On a related matter, the BBC news bulletins yesterday had an item about safety while mucking about on the beach/in the sea. A couple of times in each bulletin they repeated that,

"More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"

The unspoken implication being (to my mind) "and we all know how dangerous cycling is, don't we?"

Give me strength!!

 

[Lemond]

On a related matter, the BBC news bulletins yesterday had an item about safety while mucking about on the beach/in the sea. A couple of times in each bulletin they repeated that,

"More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"

The unspoken implication being (to my mind) "and we all know how dangerous cycling is, don't we?"

Give me strength!!

Or that cycling is quite safe...compared to swimming.

 

[classic33]

[QUOTE 3788138, member: 45"]Ok.....

"A car and a bike collided"
"A bike collided with a car"[/QUOTE]
I'd lay the blame with the car driver on the first, the cyclist on the second.
Based purely on the order of the words

 

[stoatsngroats]

"More people die in the sea around the UK than are killed in cycling accidents!"

The unspoken implication being (to my mind) "and we all know how dangerous cycling is, don't we?"

I never saw the report, but i find this weird, because I take this to show that 'we' (the population) seem to be unaware of the risks of 'being in the sea', putting our OWN lives in danger, whereas cyclists get 'killed' (by the actions of others), and that the correlation, and therefore the statement makes no sense.... Quite apart from the sensationlist inclusion of the comparison, it is like comparing apples with sweets...
As for being informative, for me it adds nothing, other than the desire to make statistics seem relevant to a news report, possibly to indicate that the report is unbiased, and factual.

It reminds me of John Majors statement when he stated "I am absolutely convinced beyond any doubt.." which is another over indulgence on a meteoric scale imho!

 

[lastwheel]

The original article in the Standard is lazy journalism. The "Blog" is very lazy journalism. Your reporting of the "blog" is very very very lazy journalism.

Author here. My piece has been very well received. It's telling that know-it-all-know-nothing cynics like srw have to leverage 3 words out of 5000 to discredit the whole, that's very very very lazy critique even making a falsehood of a truthful claim. It's probably self preservation otherwise the complexity might blow his tiny mind. The Standard is 30% owned by the Dailymail via the DMGT (which stands for Daily Maily and General Trust) and The independent has 60%. Even if I'd have included that which was a conscious choice not to I'm still "very lazy" having not accounted for the last 10%. It's a deliberate poke at those that snootily don't link to the Dailymail but link to Dailymail brands like The Standard or any of the 70 town publishers it owns through Localworld.

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.

This is sentiment I expected and is the laziest or most dishonest critque of them all. One has to be particularly credulous or complicit to explain mass standardisation as "poor". Bad journalism would be incoherent but for some reason (which I'm covering in an unpublished part 3) 100s of publishers (1000s if you look globally) reproduce the same car-washed narratives. Perhaps Part 2 (https://medium.com/@lastwheel/the-ideological-war-on-cycling-ii-df7731ddd814) can give you some ammunition against these sorts of dullards.

 

[lastwheel]

Ffs no again. You are wrong. Collided is neutral. You don't like it tough tits. Saying someone collided does not convey liability on any one party therefore it cannot be libellous, it cannot be contempt because it is a neutral term and you do not have to use privilege to say it.
After the fact, ie after the mobile using driver was found guilty, then you can argue that using collided is a deliberate act. Prior to the case it is a neutral term, again whether you like it or not,
I'm going off to do something more useful, like bang my head against the wall.

"Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.

 

[classic33]

"Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.

How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.

 

[Profpointy]

How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.

I dare say you got the point for all that

 

[Profpointy]

"Man collides with knife". It's not neutral. I've updated the article since first publication, a few times actually—there is a never ending supply of bizarre language. "Ambulance left the road and collided with a field". If it's neutral then perhaps that can be inverted: "field collided with an ambulance". It's not neutral.

Although I agree "collided with" is often not neutral, problems arise with a factually and indeed common-sense correct "cyclist collided with car" when said car, possibly now stationary, has pulled out in front. Blame is with the car, yet finding language which conveys who was moving without being misleading as to fault, is tricky

 

[lastwheel]

How could anything collide with a field, usually an area? Collide with the ditch or something in the field I can understand.

That was a real quote so go ask the journalist involved. It's probably language taken from police press releases.

 

[classic33]

That was a real quote so go ask the journalist involved. It's probably language taken from police press releases.

My thought upon seeing it, unable to ask the journalist involved, because I don't know who he was/is. If that's from a police press release then the person responsible needs it pointing out to them.

 

[lastwheel]

My thought upon seeing it, unable to ask the journalist involved, because I don't know who he was/is. If that's from a police press release then the person responsible needs it pointing out to them.

This style of reporting has been consistent for decades. Broken things gets fixed, therefore inductively the person is doing what their boss wants.