http://commonsensej.blogspot.com/
Check out the second item on this blog, the one that starts with "The second is about something concerning me more and more..." It's about the issue of journalists implying the guilt of suspects before they've had their due process in court, just like the story we looked at for extra credit for our midterm. In this case, a story about a paramedic who allegedly stole money from a patient came straight from the wire with the headline "Paramedic took patient's money." Doesn't sound like there's any doubt that he did it, huh? Well, the Charlotte Observer printed the story with that exact headline. WCNC later published the same story with a much better, rewritten headline "Paramedic accused of theft from patient, co-workers." I guess this just goes to show how important it is to be extra-sensitive and careful when editing and writing heds for crime stories.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The confusion here is probably my fault because of unclear writing, but the story was the Observer's, not AP's, as near as I could tell. But I am seeing it more and more as wire-service stories are slapped onto Web sites. Wire-service desks know better (or should), but occasionally one gets through. In the "old days" it didn't do a lot of harm because it was only going into members' computers. Now, of course, it's a new game.
Post a Comment