To be a strong writer, you have to be a savvy reader. In many cases, the blogosphere (and mass media) have lost any semblance of journalistic integrity. For the first time in history, the burden of journalistic proof falls on the reader.
We’ve amassed five of today’s most misleading articles. You can check out screenshots but I refuse to link to the original articles. These guys don’t need any more pageviews to validate their shoddy reporting. If you’re interested in the original articles, you know where to find them.
1. Fox News waxes ironic over campaign ad.
We can always count on Fox News for slanted information masquerading as “news”. Let’s start with the nutgraph here:
Mitt Romney asked Thursday where all the “hope and change” has gone, as President Obama’s supporters pressed ahead with plans to air a misleading TV ad and a top campaign aide was accused of “lying” about her knowledge of its contents.
You should immediately recognize this as the form of sensational garbage journalism it actually is. The article goes on to call into question the organization behind this ad, calling it a “purportedly independent super PAC Priorities USA.”
Why is this so wrong? Not once does the article present evidence that the super PAC is linked the Obama campaign. Furthermore, it uses subversive language to plant ideas in the head of the reader that have no factual basis.
2. TechCrunch thinks views automatically translate to popular opinion.
Listen, I think SOPA and related legislation are disgraces to lawmakers everywhere. But TechCrunch seems to think that “10 million views” means 10 million people agree with the video in question.
It also makes the assertion that the video accurately “shows” readers what’s up. Look no further than the concluding statement for “proof” that TechCrunch advocates shitty journalism.
Perhaps the most interesting lesson in all of this is that the popularity of the video is in large part due to hitting the front page of the Pirate Bay, a prominent website for downloading illegal copies of music and movies. It goes to show how popular websites can have the force of major media companies when they turn their front pages into billboards for political causes.
The fact that the video garnered 10 million views doesn’t prove anything about public opinion or what “popular websites” are capable of, beyond the fact that it’s been seen 10 million times.
3. Gawker assumes we should care about new trashy show.
I really couldn’t read more than a couple of paragraphs in this one. How in the name of Christ almighty is this worthy of the front page?
First of all, don’t tell me what I should care about, Gawker. In regards to you, the only thing I care about is the fact that people actually read your horrifying publication.
Do the writers at Gawker understand the pop culture implications of what they do? Did you really just spend hours culling together a “story” on a “reality” television show that only serves to reinforce stereotypes? And if you don’t believe me, watch the absolutely terrifying trailer for the show. Then, never, ever watch or read anything about this destroyer of art and intellectualism again.
4. HuffPo spoke to everyone in the entire world for a story.
5. HotAir blows smoke up everyone’s asses.
So what you’re telling me is that a traditionally conservative publication put together a video to discredit liberals? And you’re also telling me that every single contraception supporter that they interviewed couldn’t explain themselves?
Or are you just showing one side of the argument? Great journalism. Fantastic morals and ethics from a group of people who run on a platform of morals and ethics.
Find any gems lately? Share them with us in the replies.