Ace online media at work
Here's the headline:
U.S. jets will stand on guard during Vancouver OlympicsNow note the photo for this story at Nationalnewswatch.com, July 7. It's not an American jet, it's a Eurofighter Typhoon. More on the Typhoon here.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 6:40 p.m.
14 Comments:
It's not like this is a new problem. Back in the '80s my local cageliner printed a photo with a caption to the effect of "Soviet tanks on maneuvers". The photo showed a reinforced motor-rifle company: 13 BMPs, 6 SP 122mm howitzers, 4 BRDMs, and a couple of the Soviet jeeps. Not a single tank in sight ... :-P
I suppose we're lucky they didn't use a photo of a MiG 29, complete with Red Star insignia.
hey, it's the Canadian media . . at least they identified it as a plane.
That's a big step in the right direction.
Tank ID's are still a ways off.
On the front page of the Edmonton Journal this year I saw a picture of a Canadian weapons tech standing in front of a an AH-64 Apache and the caption read that he was standing in front of "his blackhawk hellicopter".
I'm almost afraid to imagine what would constitute an "intelligence and terrorism expert journalist".
Not that 99% of them are any better down here in the Great Satan. It seems there's a pretty bad chaff-to-wheat ratio in most of the West's MSM, at least in the Anglosphere.
(My formerly pretty good high school/college French has eroded so I'm not up to critical reading in French anymore, leaving me unqualified to comment on Quebec or French MSM. Anyone out there who is and would care to share their observations or comment?)
Umm.. I know that I'm about to get utterly attacked for this, but isn't this a bit of a reach Mark?
The aircraft may not be made in the US but the article isn't talking about it's country of manufacture, but what air force it's part of.
So the headline is correct.
Let the accusations of being a lefty poofta terrorist supporting idiot start in 3...2...1....
Cam, the headline is correct as far as I know: American jets will patrol over Vancouver. Just as Canadian jets provided security for the Superbowl a couple of years ago.
It's the picture with the headline that's misleading. Neither the U.S. nor Canada flies Typhoons, and there are piles of photos of CF-18's and every U.S. fighter on the internet to choose from.
So why would they put that picture with the article? Are all fighter jets the same to them?
Scolding the media for ignorance on military matters is one of the things we do around here, and it seems to me this falls within that mandate.
bb, it wasn't clear to me upon reading this post that this was your criticism with the article.
Clearly it falls within your mandate to scold, it's just that you needed to be clearer about what the problem was.
It seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you missed the second sentence of the post. Don't blame the author for your mistake as a reader. It's bad form.
nomennovum, so I should lie and pretend that it meant something to me that it didn't?
That seems like good advice.
You should say, "Sorry; I misunderstood what you wrote," instead of "You should write clearer" -- especially when the sentence, "It's not an American jet, it's a Eurofighter Typhoon," makes the meaning abundantly clear to all but the most cursory reader ... or the reader who doesn't want to understand.
Did you not bother to reread the post after Babbling Brooks pointed out the meaning? A considerate reader would. A literate man would quickly see his error. A gentleman would not hide his mistake behind crass blame-shifting.
Why is this so hard for you?
Cameron: Then there's Lawrence Martin and his pipeline confusion. Our media seem to have very little concern for fact, much less any real expertise.
Mark
Ottawa
nomennovum, I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who gives a crap about what you think.
I said what I thought, BB clarified to me what Mark meant, I honestly don't think that I made an unreasonable interpretation of the sentence.
At this point you're either spoiling for a fight or are functioning under the delusion that a) bb/Mark are in need of protection from me and/or b) that you are somehow in charge.
In the first case, please see my first paragraph. In the second case a) they don't - we're all old (in internet time) buddies and b) you aren't. You need to deal with this.
Mark, that one just won't die will it?
I suppose that Karzai being an ex-oil company man does feed that particular flame though doesn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home