CubsFan7724 wrote:WharfRat wrote:Mookie4ever wrote:In a public interest story "boy causes a disturbance by laughing during Schindlers List and is asked to leave" does not sell but "Disabled 7-year-old ejected from theater" gets people mad and they want to read. These stories are meant to rouse emotions.
The first item you mention isn't newsworthy. It happens all the time, and it's pretty ordinary. It would be like a reporter writing a story about someone sending back soup in a restaurant because it was cold. The latter story is newsworthy. It's out of the ordinary, and it sounds like the kid and his family got screwed. Do you think the reporter should have simply said "not interested" when the family called him about it? Should he have said he doesn't do stories about handicapped kids getting unfairly screwed, because it would make people too mad? Does the fact that it rouses emotions mean that it shouldn't be covered?In the business and law sections I do not believe anything other than the cold hard facts because those journalists all have agendas and are not shy about them. One journalist will write the story "Martha Stewart Scammed Millions in Insider Trading Scheme" while another will write "SEC Abuses Power and Wastes Public Money Yet Again in Witchhunt". These guys will not let the facts get in the way of their story and I know of countless stories where journalists have outright lied to make their story.
OK, you're obviously exaggerating a little bit here. If you can actually show me a link to a real story from a real newspaper that takes an approach you described, I might change my tune. I see your point though, and I think you're way off. Are reporters machines? No. They write their stories the way they perceive them, and different reporters would handle a single story differently. But that's a far cry from bias. So in your experience, what have they lied about?I respect some journalists but others are just out to sell papers.
Fair enough. But sensationalism and fabrication are two very different things.
How is this story different because hes disabled. Should he have special privileges to be annoying because hes disabled?
A regular kid knows not to screw around. This is newsworthy because a) the kid probably wasnt able to control himself, and b) the manager might have overreacted. It also raises questions: Is this standard treatment of disabled kids? And how much leeway, if any, should the rest of society give disabled folks who could possibly be disruptive? Plus, it's something of a rarity. The fact that it has its own thread tells me something about its newsworthiness.