GameBanshee Forums

I got the idea for this topic after just hearing a BBC broadcast with a portion of a speech by John Ashcroft, US Attorney General, live. Ashcroft was speaking about the anthrax hoax--of people who were deliberating raising the tension, or trying to get revenge under the blanket of the current crisis. He even named names of people who were under federal arrest because of this.

And over it all, about halfway through, came the voice of the BBC announcer--Julie Swallow, I believe her name is--stating, "We are listening to US Attorney General John Ashcroft live, on the anthrax epidemic."

This isn't the first time that either the BBC, or Julie Swallow, for that matter, has twisted the news to suit a particular image. Now, I'm not arguing whether there is or is not a genuine problem with anthrax in the US; but Ashcroft wasn't speaking about any epidemic. (Nor is there an epidemic. That is an inflammatory term, and it also has a very specific medical meaning.)

Has anybody else noticed similar instances connected with this crisis of news stations "shaping" the news they were covering, to garner closer attention and higher ratings?

In the front page of the Times today (England) Robin Cook (Foreign secretary) made a complaint about the 24 hour news service industry twisting and demanding news. They were trying to rush things on for new pictures etc, they were basically rushing a war

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Nippy ]

I posted a perfectly good Anthrax thread 45 minutes ago... But oh well.

Hmm... Yeah, I mean the media is like "Fight already, we want to sell our magazines and make money!"

Sad thing is, you look at a lot of the headlines and you just know they aren't true... people will sell anything to make a buck.

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>I posted a perfectly good Anthrax thread 45 minutes ago... But oh well. </STRONG>

@Shadow, you're being a bit unfair. What you did was start a thread with this specific purpose:

What do you believe is the cause of the anthrax attacks?

That's very different from the subject, here. If you want to further define your topic subject, I would suggest perhaps revising it to "Anthrax attacks: the causes." But please, don't blame me when I start up a new, different topic.

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>Hmm... Yeah, I mean the media is like "Fight already, we want to sell our magazines and make money!"

Sad thing is, you look at a lot of the headlines and you just know they aren't true... people will sell anything to make a buck.</STRONG>

You couldn't have hit the nail on the head closer Shadow.



However what is sad is that people will actually buy the repeated articles. I honestly beieve the best source of information is the net, you get a variety of opinions and you can look for the one that agrees with you.

Some newspaper (sorry, no ref. but I wasn't paying attention) made a big thing of the fact that the wife of the guy that died from anthrax in Florida had rented an apartment to two of the pilots from the WTC attack. The connection (at least according to police/FBI as reported by BBC ) was purely coincidental.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Shadow, you're being a bit unfair. What you did was start a thread with this specific purpose:

What do you believe is the cause of the anthrax attacks?

That's very different from the subject, here. If you want to further define your topic subject, I would suggest perhaps revising it to "Anthrax attacks: the causes." But please, don't blame me when I start up a new, different topic.</STRONG>

You win. I'm sorry

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>You couldn't have hit the nail on the head closer Shadow.



However what is sad is that people will actually buy the repeated articles. I honestly beieve the best source of information is the net, you get a variety of opinions and you can look for the one that agrees with you. </STRONG>

Exactly! Besides, the 'Net updates much faster than newspapers... I read about the WTC around 9:30. The Web is a good way to get the honest facts before someone distorts them.

Originally posted by Silur:
<STRONG>Some newspaper (sorry, no ref. but I wasn't paying attention) made a big thing of the fact that the wife of the guy that died from anthrax in Florida had rented an apartment to two of the pilots from the WTC attack. The connection (at least according to police/FBI as reported by BBC ) was purely coincidental.</STRONG>

Hmm.... That's very interesting. That's really strange...

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>You win. </STRONG>

No, we both win. We both have new, interesting topics. No losers, there.

Yup!

I also think it's bad that they keep on showing terrible pictures... why make us feel worse? Show pictures of people having hope instead of exposing us all to the WTC collapsing again.

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>Hmm.... That's very interesting. That's really strange...</STRONG>

Well, that's the interesting thing about random events... they're, um, random . What generally ends up being a problem is that we (ie people) tend to only remember and attribute meaning to the "weird" random events. Nobody really cares about all the times a flipped coin lands on either head or tails, but if for once it lands on edge (which is statistically possible) it has some sort of arcane significance.

It's something that we haven't seen done before, and it interests us naturally. It is human instinct to be naturally drawn to bizarre happenings such as lightning balls and comets, and want to know more when the time happens.

I agree, the anomalies are the fun part. But lacking a sense of perspective, things like this have a tendency to generate conspiracy theories, and we don't want to go there (I mean, they might be listening... oh no, did I write that? Where's my medicine ).

Like Nostradamus. Everyone just heard "An ancient poet may have predicted WTC collapse" and just the rumors spread out of whack. It's like spreading rumors... everyone adds their own two cents until the dollar becomes five dollars. And anyone would rather take the five dollars than the dollar bill, leaving the truth as "theories" but the gossip as "fact". Human nature is confusing.

Originally posted by Shadow Sandrock:
<STRONG>Yup!

I also think it's bad that they keep on showing terrible pictures... why make us feel worse? Show pictures of people having hope instead of exposing us all to the WTC collapsing again.</STRONG>

My wife and I hit dinner in Budapest at a MidEastern place (by chance) the night of the terrorist attacks in the US. As we sat there eating, the owners were watching, enthralled, as a television in Arabic played commentary underneath a repeated image of one of the planes flying into the Towers, followed by its collapse. This repetition continued for the entire time we were there--nearly an hour.

Yes, it certainly created a sense of emotional enormity, but I question its usefulness. People were focusing on the image, ignoring whatever was being said. And over the coming days, that image became a tool to gain viewership--a cheap and cynical thing, IMO.

Yes. It is like, we know that the towers fell, but do you have to show us how 6,000 people died? Over and over?

What really sucks is all the magazines' covers are all pictures of the south tower collapsing as of late... Except this one Time magazine that had George W Bush holding a flag on the rubble. The shot wasn't that great either.

When one female British journalist was caught by Taliban after smuggled her camera and herself into Afganistan without her passport or any document a few weeks ago, there were many rumours and unofficial report flew around. The worst one I came across was, in the BBC Radio news, a female news reader asked to a BBC correspondence in Pakistan, "But she is not the only one who's secretly gone into Afganistan, isn't she?"!! My jaw dropped and the correspondence actually fell into silence for a moment. That is not the point, idiot!

Human nature in itself, in one person on his own is manageable (well, somewhat), but putting numerous humans in an interactive environment can really result in some "very strange behaviour". I favour the "Utter confusion theory" when it comes to describing group behaviour. A good nights rest and reflecting over issues after a few cups of coffee (but before lunch!) may alleviate some of the erratic conclusions made in "inspired group discussions".

@Minerva: Gee... they'd do anything to make more news than necessary.

@Silur: Yup yup! Although I don't like coffee... caffeinated orange soda will do. Or maybe some of Hotaru's Dr. Pepper.

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>When one female British journalist was caught by Taliban after smuggled her camera and herself into Afganistan without her passport or any document a few weeks ago, there were many rumours and unofficial report flew around. The worst one I came across was, in the BBC Radio news, a female news reader asked to a BBC correspondence in Pakistan, "But she is not the only one who's secretly gone into Afganistan, isn't she?"!! My jaw dropped and the correspondence actually fell into silence for a moment. That is not the point, idiot! </STRONG>

I've noticed a tendency on BBC's Newshour for announcers to use a "get tough" attitude with guests. I've actually heard them repeatedly use the phrase, "But wouldn't you say that..." in interviews--the kind of thing that would be thrown out in a court of law as "leading the witness." Some guests don't know how to handle this, so they play along. The ones I've liked best are those who have stood up to the mishandling and replied, "No, I wouldn't say that, and I'd appreciate it if you let me formulate my own opinions."