Sensationalism headline

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I kind of detest 1) not being considered intelligent enough as a member of the public for events to portray their own seriousness without manipulation. The emphasis should have been in words such as, "extremely serious assault." or "critical injuries", not, "And the attackers favorite quote of the day is..." 2) one was enough.

I have neither read the article or intend to, much as in might have interested me, had I not been able to draw a conclusion (any conclusion) about the authors before letting my interest guide me into it. Blood Red Sandmans comment, for instance, is 1) an excuse, but it is also 2) a motive. There is absolutely no need for excuses or motives in this or any other article. It can belie nothing only manipulation. I understand the motive full well, isn't it well founded? But, I'd have thought that here on Wikinews that sensationalism was skillfully avoided and with foresight and guidance. Surely half the folk reading and writing around here are budding journalists, be that professional or otherwise. Sensationalism, manipulation, is always the yukky stick.

I cannot recall the last time I was so bemused that I pulled a second cigarette from the box without even lighting the first one as I have just now so I am going to go and think about giving up smoking. If someone from Wikinews could go away and think about never ever being accused of sensationalism, that events speak for themsevles, that human nature is true and resolves itself only when we do not select the emotions of others to exaggerate and aggitate when they are obviously having their own emotions already. It is in this type of case that we really need to keep peoples emotions in check and if that doesn't ring true, if you are like, "Yes, but this is why we did it and let's do it again..." or "No, we want to manipulate peoples emotions when we find them running high, because we know the *best* ways to do it..."

RTG (talk)08:09, 9 May 2011

You've not read the article? Pah! Then you're claiming one line is sensationalist from a position of ignorance.

Brian McNeil / talk10:10, 9 May 2011
 

"I have neither read the article or intend to..."

Well then, I have no intention of wasting my time on the rest of your comment. Ta ta for now!

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)16:43, 9 May 2011
 

"I have neither read the article [n]or intend to..."

Sorry, I'm a stickler for that particular grammatical construct =P

DENDODGE17:20, 9 May 2011
 

It's an old debate. The sensationalist is the bad guy every time. If you consider it new or original or even particular to this article it is scarcely worth debating, but it is always worth pointing out because, the sensationalist is the bad guy, every time.

He (the guy on trial) is probably in some pub right now thinking about that remark making a world headline with a smug grin. How clever he was. And why shouldn't you clap him on the back, right?

Why was the title not:-

'Fucking Bastard!':London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

or,

'You fucking cunt, you'll remember this day for the rest of your life.':London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

Because whoever wrote it was twisting it to their own design. It should read:-

London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

It should not have a selected quote, a selected joke, or a rating out of ten. Deep inquiry is not required to draw that conlusion or to verify it. End of story.

RTG (talk)19:23, 9 May 2011