Rank: Super forum user 
|
A common thread on this forum is how the Daily Mail distort the truth and even make things up just to write sensationalist news stories - especially in relation to the fact that they seem to have it in for health and safety and will write anything to give the impression that all H&S is conkers bonkers.
The forum seems to have come to the collective conclusion that the DM is nothing more than lies written to entertain the masses at the expense of health and safety.
....and yet recently I have seen a couple of threads where links to the DM have been posted but using that an article written in the DM as proof of their point about something being a 'real' issue.
Are we expectig it both ways here? Condemn it when it makes us look like idiots and yet quote it as fact when we think it suits our purpose???
Strikes me that we're a fickle bunch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Personally, I don't believe anything written in the DM. I think they will write whatever sells papers. Saying that, I don't think other papers are much better - official reports on incidents are as close as you're really going to get without being involved in the investigation itself. Anything printed in a newspaper is subject to editing and applying whatever bias the paper may have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Claire,
I agree with Marcus, I don't read any of the 'newspapers' as they are so unreliable. But I can add this perspective. Newspapers do have an editorial line, but it is more tightly imposed in some areas than in others, and it is in the area of editorial hobby-horses that distortion is most prevalent. The DM (and the other black & red-tops) have identified H&S with the spawn of satan, and will only ever run disparaging stories on the subject, and their opinions are therefore of little use; levels of distortion are high, headlines often do not match content, and myths are endlessly recycled. In other areas the distortions are less evident.
My nephew was killed in a RTI some years ago, the report in the local press was simply inaccurate, and indicated either that the journalist had been asleep in the inquest or had perhaps not been there and had made it all up. But to me, although I wrote a letter disputing her view of the Coroner's comments, that was just to be expected. 'Boy racer in death crash' is a much better headline than 'Cause of death uncertain, responsibility for the crash cannot be determined'; but the Coroner did find the second version, not the first.
It's said we get the journalism we deserve. I must have done something really, really bad in a past life,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have made my point badly.
I too do not believe what is written in the DM. I never read it.
I am just pondering / seeking reason why, when most of us condemn the DM's reporting, there have appeared on these forums some references to news stories in the DM as fact (in relation to information about an incident and civil claims etc where the facts in that context - not negative H&S - have not been disputed).
Like I said, pondering the fickle nature of humans when we condemn criticism from a source but don't question non-critical information from the same source.
I don;t think I have made my point any clearer with that!!! Oh well. Ignore me. I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claire,
No, I think your point was quite clear; I hope I answered it. To summarise what I said, newspapers are unreliable, but the degree of unreliability varies and is reasonably consistent from one type of story to another. So the black/red tops are absolutely unrelaible about H&S, but perhaps more reliable in other areas. Maybe people quote them, as AndyBlue seems to have done, when there seems to be some consistency between what they say and other, more reliable sources? So it can be reasonable to trust some of what they print, and not the other bits.
And for me that's part of the problem, readers can end up trusting the wrong bits because some of what they read they know to be true,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
[
....and yet recently I have seen a couple of threads where links to the DM have been posted but using that an article written in the DM as proof of their point about something being a 'real' issue.
Claire
Read my last reply to your last post. While I do not disagree that there is an agenda on both sides regarding H&S stories in the DM, taking any second hand story from tabloids or broadsheets is dangerous, and quite frankly if anyone is prepared to accept it as gospel, well quite frankly more fool you.
Propaganda is and has been for hundreds of years been used as a powerful tool, it is down to the individual to dissect the information provided and form a judgement, and if a balanced analysis is not applied to the information, then the end result can often be one like the backlash H&S has felt in the last couple of years.
In response to your question, are we a fickle bunch, I would say we are all fickle at times that suit us in all walks of life, and we are all probably guilty of taking what we want from articles to suit our own agenda, is that not where Politicians and Lawers success comes from? As regards it from a H&S perspective I personally think that jobs within the industry are under threat because of a media slant, some of which I have to admit is justified, but overall I think that the majority of H&S proffesionals are in their positions for the right reasons, and if it means being fickle sometimes to protect their livelihoods well you can hardly blame them
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
they have job to do..... and bad news sells better than good news.....when i read the papers i know for certain that the only thing thats right is the date and the name
(price can be decieving *Star)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=Clairel]Are we expecting it both ways here? Condemn it when it makes us look like idiots and yet quote it as fact when we think it suits our purpose???
Strikes me that we're a fickle bunch! An alternative explanation is that posters are pointing out the self evident hypocrisy in the papers scandalised coverage of incidents and the anti H&S message they are putting forward. Only today, we have a scandalised article about a former soldier killed in a giant industrial mixer, yet if the paper gets it's way - the very risk assessments that could have identified and prevented that incident will be ditched as "red tape". That's how I had interpreted it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Very, very good point clarel....beat me to it ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Clairel wrote:
Are we expectig it both ways here? Condemn it when it makes us look like idiots and yet quote it as fact when we think it suits our purpose???
Getting 2 h&s advisers to agree is difficult enough! It's hardly surprising if one or two DM fans post here; doesn't mean the rest of us are fickle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Claire-if you don't ever read the DM, how do you know not to believe it? Just a thought....Or do you get the info by a process of osmosis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
gordonhawkins wrote:Hi Claire-if you don't ever read the DM, how do you know not to believe it? Just a thought....Or do you get the info by a process of osmosis? Cause of the amount of clippings that get posted here!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Touche! I suppose it stops us having to buy it (except for the sport pages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.