How much truth behind the stories? - Erikson, owen - money for old rope?
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:12 pm
Seeing another article on Owen not being happy at Newcastle (much discussed on this board already i know) and the past few days comments about Sven quitting after the World Cup, his dedication to the squad blah blah blah, I got to wondering how trustworthy any 'news' report is.
I am not in the UK and don't read the newspapers, but their 'scandals' drip feed the online websites, including the impartial BBC online. Often these stories concern the same people and whom dismiss it all as rubbish and I wonder how much of it emanates from the fact that they are in the spotlight and a (fictional) mini-scoop will sell some newspapers, or how much truth lies behind it? For the stories to re-appear time and time again, there must be at least an element of truth in them...maybe?
I wondered what your thoughts were on this and also whether it is right for a site such as BBC to perpetuate an unfounded story probably generated by a newspaper with a limited readership base to a much wider audience.
I personally am a big user of the internet, especially to keep in touch with the UK and would feel lost without it, but I contradict myself by feeling that media has too strong an influence on the world nowadays and think we would often be better off without the degree of coverage that we are privy to nowadays. I think that the old standard of journalism should prevail and any allegations made should be able to be qualified with a source. Reporting that rumours are going around about someone doesn't qualify as news to me and entities such as the BBC should be striving to reduce this sort of journalism, not perpetuate it.
I would be interested in your opinions.
I am not in the UK and don't read the newspapers, but their 'scandals' drip feed the online websites, including the impartial BBC online. Often these stories concern the same people and whom dismiss it all as rubbish and I wonder how much of it emanates from the fact that they are in the spotlight and a (fictional) mini-scoop will sell some newspapers, or how much truth lies behind it? For the stories to re-appear time and time again, there must be at least an element of truth in them...maybe?
I wondered what your thoughts were on this and also whether it is right for a site such as BBC to perpetuate an unfounded story probably generated by a newspaper with a limited readership base to a much wider audience.
I personally am a big user of the internet, especially to keep in touch with the UK and would feel lost without it, but I contradict myself by feeling that media has too strong an influence on the world nowadays and think we would often be better off without the degree of coverage that we are privy to nowadays. I think that the old standard of journalism should prevail and any allegations made should be able to be qualified with a source. Reporting that rumours are going around about someone doesn't qualify as news to me and entities such as the BBC should be striving to reduce this sort of journalism, not perpetuate it.
I would be interested in your opinions.