[quote me] journalists. sigh.

I *hate* it when a journalist just quotes and quotes and quotes one person or one source to come up with a news article.  They are practically not the author of that article anymore.  They should instead write the article as a co-author of the main content provider.  But no, of course they need the fame and the exposure. And eventually a promotion and a pay raise.  Welcome to Earth.

Quoting just one person of course is better than not citing/crediting any source or reference, but that to me still doesn't make it a good thing.

Not citing/crediting any source or reference is probably better than not checking the validity or credibility of a source or reference.  But that still doesn't make it a good thing.  If you are choosing the lesser of two evils, it is still evil.

Anyway, come to think of it, I *hate* it when journalists exaggerate.  Which is almost always.  Caso en punto: the 2011 Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis.

One headline read "Explosion at nuclear plant."  Which is a fact.  But is it a responsible way of presenting them?  In people's minds, two words were automatically combined: "nuclear," and "explosion."

Another headline reads, "Radiation levels are 20 times larger than normal in Tokyo."  Which is a fact.  But again, where is the responsibility!?  When you read the fine print, you find that it's still actually a hundred or more times lower than hazardous levels.

Later headlines read "Nuclear accident on par with Chernobyl."  But the fact is, they are only on the same arbitrarily level (7) assigned by the IAEA.  Technically, if the scale extended up to 10.  Chernobyl would have probably been 10, and this one still 7.  But the scale is only up to 7.  So yeah, they're the same number.  Again, arbitrarily assigned by the IAEA.  Actually, it's the amount of radiation released that is on par between the two cases, but in terms of casualties - because there was no big explosion and the radiation was practically contained in a smaller area and there was better evacuation and precautions taken than Chernobyl, the issue is not as big as it sounds.  But hey, a headline like "Nuclear accident on par with Chernobyl" would invite more clicks (and hence more advertisement income) on the news website, right?  ...than, say, "Nuclear radiation released on par with Chernobyl, but less casualties."  Oh yeah, word real estate is a valuable commodity in news reporting, too.  You can see from this example what sort of priorities journalists really have.  Nope, it's not to report news, ladies and gentlemen.  It's to earn money.  They're just like you and me.

But how did people react to those kinds of headlines?

So now what, are they going to blame people for being so stupid?

I think they intentionally manipulate people with what news they present and how they present it.  Sure, even governments do this sort of news manipulation (or news blocking, in some cases) - that the media are all angry about.  But they do it, too!  Ah, human nature.  Everyone wants to be in a position of authority.  If someone does something wrong, fire all canons.  But if they get it wrong, they don't want people up on their noses.

Lastly, I remember how one reporter interviewed someone I know, sliced and diced the things he said, and came up with a report that is totally different from what the interviewee said.  So if you ever get interviewed by a journalist, be careful, modern technology could turn your "I don't like XXX so much" into "I... like XXX so much."  Hey, those are words you used exactly.  Don't complain.