Talk:Romanian president warns of high-level corruption
I think this as en excellent example of the type of deceiving journalism we should NOT have here. Title: "Romanian president calls Romania a mafia country", content: "Romanian president sais that Romanie IS PERCEIVED AS a mafia country". Two COMPLETELY different sentences, and an attitude to journalism that is nothing but completely despiccable. I will rename this article.
--188.8.131.52 16:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Sorry, forgot to log in, that above is me --Regebro 16:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but this headline is way to bleak. It does not accurately reflect the content. The president tells high-level prosecutors that they must "ensure that Romania does not become a mafia-like country"
I will rename this article. SamRiley 18:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the initial article was an example of deceptive journalism. Let me give a little bit of background here. User:184.108.40.206 wrote this article in response to my contribution of Romania-related content, as he claimed that I did not have balance in my reporting (I think he meant that I only wrote positive articles about Romania). Anyway, he decided to go ahead and contribute a more "balanced" piece of reporting - one that also highlights the negative aspects of Romania. That is of course OK! Anyone can write about whatever they want as long as its truthful.
User:220.127.116.11's contribution, however, was deceptive, as if he wanted right from the start to portray Romania in a negative light just so that it can offset the positive contributions. So, he titled the article to "Romanian president calls Romania a mafia country", which is of course deceptive. What it said in the reference article that "Romania is perceived as a mafia country" and should not actually become one ("ensure that Romania does not become a mafia-like country"). These are two different things, as Regebro said! Perception is different to reality. However, Regebro, what do you mean an attitude to journalism that is totally despicable? I don't understand you there.
So I just wanted to let you know the background. I think the article in its current shape is good, as well as the headline. It's a bit general, but it's good. Ronline 23:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)