2) I do not believe that anyone is popular enough to not fix errors. By fixing their errors in their articles this would not tell me that they are not credible, rather that they are more concerned about being credible. This shows that they want the people to have the right information that has their name attached to it.
3) I do not see evidence of copy editors. They have instances of grammar errors and their stories are not all backed up. They have stories on their sites that are opinion and that are just made up.
4) I think that there is a middle ground between these two sides. Not all people will believe that a man was ate by 120 dogs. Some people might, but I see that as very unpractical. On the other hand, all old people do not say that we do not believe that is it possible for a person to be eaten by dogs.
5) In the sports world specifically, people can produce reports of trades, scores, or injuries without having actual evidence. There have been reports that the Knicks are going to hire former coach Phil Jackson. Espn reported, without confirming with Phil, that the Knicks are in talks with him. Lately, Phil has said that there was no offer between the two. Also, reports about injuries in football say that a player could miss 4 weeks for a foot problem. That same player will still suit up to play in 3 weeks. These reporters do not know their medical facts well enough to report on sport injuries.
6) The New Yorker had more information typed on their site. This site provided a better background of the story. The Huffington Post had a slideshow of celebrities. The New Yorker would attract a group of people who like to read and have more background. The Huffington Post would attract an audience that is lazy and is more interested in famous people, than the real story. Both write about a highly interesting topic, they just report it differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment