Zable
Telly Talk Dream Maker
LV
0
- Messages
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 570
- Awards
- 2
I hate... News media republishing reports originally filed by another news media but editing out pertinent information, (deliberately, I suspect) to give a misleading picture. Folk who comment on the story unwittingly get set off on the wrong tangent, often stirring up ire on unfounded things. But, I suspect that in cases of pertinent info being deliberately edited out, the first online comment is from someone who knowingly misfires up the 'debate'.
This is a comparatively mild example of misleading editing. So innocuously done:
In June last year, former Miss Venezuela Carmen Montiel filed a civil suit against United Airlines, claiming damages for "mental anguish, malicious prosecution and defamation". This lawsuit followed after she had undergone a 3-day trial in which she stood accused of "interference with a flight attendant" -- arising from a mid-flight incident in 2013. She was found not guilty.
In the wake of what happened to Dr David Dao two Sundays ago, Ms Montiel was interviewed by the New York Post about what happened to her on a United red-eye flight and how she felt, and it published its report on April 15. In it, it stated, separately, when she filed her lawsuit and where. http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/former-beauty-queen-was-roughed-up-on-united-flight-suit/.
IMO, the NYP story does not need much editing for clarity. Possibly, only for space if republished elsewhere.
Now the UK's The Sun is running that NYP story by the same reporter. But, in its editing, The Sun has also edited out the date of Ms Montiel's lawsuit (though it left in the part about where she'd filed the suit). https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33423...rlines-flight-by-two-guards-after-pillow-row/
People, being people, are gonna think Ms Montiel's lawsuit is a recent filing, I thought to myself as I read The Sun's version (after having already read the original version on NYP). Sure enough... When I looked at the online comments on The Sun's version, the was only 1 so far, from AreYouThere. It reads: "Band Wagon Jumpers On. Can I SMELL COMPO?"
This is a comparatively mild example of misleading editing. So innocuously done:
In June last year, former Miss Venezuela Carmen Montiel filed a civil suit against United Airlines, claiming damages for "mental anguish, malicious prosecution and defamation". This lawsuit followed after she had undergone a 3-day trial in which she stood accused of "interference with a flight attendant" -- arising from a mid-flight incident in 2013. She was found not guilty.
In the wake of what happened to Dr David Dao two Sundays ago, Ms Montiel was interviewed by the New York Post about what happened to her on a United red-eye flight and how she felt, and it published its report on April 15. In it, it stated, separately, when she filed her lawsuit and where. http://nypost.com/2017/04/15/former-beauty-queen-was-roughed-up-on-united-flight-suit/.
IMO, the NYP story does not need much editing for clarity. Possibly, only for space if republished elsewhere.
Now the UK's The Sun is running that NYP story by the same reporter. But, in its editing, The Sun has also edited out the date of Ms Montiel's lawsuit (though it left in the part about where she'd filed the suit). https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33423...rlines-flight-by-two-guards-after-pillow-row/
People, being people, are gonna think Ms Montiel's lawsuit is a recent filing, I thought to myself as I read The Sun's version (after having already read the original version on NYP). Sure enough... When I looked at the online comments on The Sun's version, the was only 1 so far, from AreYouThere. It reads: "Band Wagon Jumpers On. Can I SMELL COMPO?"