• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Headlines that stretch the truth

thealigator

Registered Member
Something that Major has said has got me thinking and rather than putting it onto the thread I thought making a separate thread was a better idea. As you know newspapers and news tv shows tend to stretch the truth at times, at other times they out right lie through their teeth. Not all do. In the UK we have very upstanding papers like The Guardian and The Independent who tend to be quite upfront and honest. We also have The Daily Mail and The Sun which are just hate monger literature that happen to end up on the same shelves as newspaper.

With all though sometimes they can be economical with the truth, in the end I think most of us would agree that newspapers these days are out there to make money first and report second. It's a sad truth but I happen to think it is true.

Should they be held accountable in your opinion and if they already are do you think it goes far enough? If a headline either lies or implies something that is not entirely truthful should have to retract, change or make a statement about what they have written? Where do you think this lies and do you think this is required?
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Most papers print retractions, they just do it in a shy, cowardly way such as a few brief sentences in the back corner of the paper.

All news outlets have owners, the Guardian and the Independent are no different. They will always have a curve in their reporting because there is money to be made. Businesses are built to make a profit and news media giants are not exempt from that.

They should 100% be held accountable if they are going to print hateful, defaming, and downright untrue bits especially when they lead to people reacting because of them. The recent terrorist bombing in the US where some whacko went into a Planned Parenthood and opened fire is a perfect example of that.

You can't sit by the fire, poking and splashing gasoline on it then throw your hands up and say, "Hey, this has nothing to do with me, I'm just sitting here!"
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
A lot of them to me seem to regurgitate the same thing. Many times I have read the exact same thing at multiple news sites. They just put a different spin on their title or at times even in the article. No many good investigative reporters left.

Sure they should be held accountable. I imagine Rolling Stone got sued over that false rape story and Al Jezeera has been sued a few times.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196652

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/al-jazeera-braces-lawsuit-battle-article-1.2205810

This is the latest one. I have a feeling lawsuits is the biggest reason they folded in the US.

Two Major League Baseball stars have sued Al Jazeera America for mentioning them in a report on the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs by professional athletes.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/media/al-jazeera-ryan-howard-ryan-zimmerman/index.html

So at least in the US they are held accountable. If politicians went after them half would be broke.
 

BJBirdy

Registered Member
I really don't trust the way the media presents things. I didn't before, but after the way my family was presented in the media back home last fall, to the point I couldn't really go out in public without someone coming up to me, I really second guess a lot of what I read.
 
Top