I posted some comments on an excellent article by Miranda Devine in SMH today. Find the article here. My comment got edited somewhat, which I don't mind at all. After all, their website their rules, they can do whatever they want.

What I did find interesting was what exactly got changed and removed. Below is the original comment, followed by what has appeared on the SMH website:

People are sheep and will largely support what they perceive the majority opinion. Every time some loony "action group" (like Pedestrain Council of Australia) comes up with a whacky idea it's give a fair coverage in the media. Couple with Sunrise style sensationalism and Commercial TV """News"""" (or should I say infotainment) people do start believe such bullshit. In order to deal with this growing problem I propose a law that media outlets MUST editorialize reporting on the whacky ideas and call them out on being whacky. No wait... Anyway, I think the slowly decentralizing mass media will help in aiding people making their own minds up, hopefully...

And this is the SMH version:

People are sheep and will largely support what they perceive the majority opinion. Every time some loony "action group" (like Pedestrain Council of Australia) comes up with a whacky idea it's give a fair coverage in the media. Couple with Sunrise style sensationalism and Commercial TV """News"""" (or should I say infotainment) people do start believe such bullshit. In order to deal with this growing problem I propose a law that media outlets MUST report on the whacky ideas and call them out on being whacky. No wait...

I can understand that suggesting that newspapers are dying is a bit of a faux pas when posting on a newspaper website. Changing "editorialize reporting" to "report" on the other hand kind of baffles me. The ironic undertone of the post was obvious, surely suggesting something as silly as that should be fair game? I just find the whole thing amusing.



blog comments powered by Disqus

Published

22 October 2009

Tags