So the past few days I've been seeing and hearing "Redheads more prone to skin cancer" everywhere, in newspapers, on television, on the radio. Being a red head, my first impulse is naturally to pay attention. My second impulse is to write an op ed piece entitled "No crap, you morons" - since redheads sunburn easier, and since overexposure to the sun can cause skin cancer, it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. I've known this since I was 5 and got my first sunburn. So why is the media screaming about this now?
Link
Hmmm, ok, forget the question of "why is this story surfacing now?" - there is something else a little more interesting going on here. Ok, so scientists have finally made the groundbreaking discovery that pigment is the main factor in red heads sensitivity to the sun, and not witchcraft and sorcery as has been supposed up until now. Once the earth-shaking, paradigm destroying implications of that have sunk in, reread the bolded section of the article. Now re-read the headline. Now reread the bolded section. I'm used to the media exagerrating things and trying to create attention-getting headlines, but this is my first encounter with an article whose contents flatly contradicted the headline. The headline states, as if it were a fact, "Pigment Makes Redheads More Prone to Skin Cancer", while one of the scientists who did the research says that there is no definite link and that they aren't even sure if their discovery is important in any way. Maybe I've been out of the loop too much, but when did the news media start resorting to out-and-out lying in order to "sell" their articles? I know that they come pretty close to lying with political headlines, but they can get away with it because politics is almost always open to subjective interpretation. But stating the exact opposite of what the scientific research they are reporting on indicates?
I know the media has been steadily declining for years and years, going from being somewhat respectable to being a group that relies on sensationalism and blowing things out of proportion in order to manufacture news, but this is my first encounter with something where there's no "spin", no "different perspective", just a lie. A harmless lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless. So, since I know almost everyone on this forum is more interested and informed on media and politics than I am, I have a question: Is this a unique mistake, or are more and more things like this starting to show up? Or, is it already prevalent?
My hypothesis is that the media is so powerful and influential now that they just don't really care what they say or report anymore because they know the masses are going to eat it up regardless, and if anyone does complain then they'll just manufacture a story on the complaint, so it's a win-win situation for them. Anyone else feel this way?
Boldface and underlining is mine, not the article's.Forbes.com said:
Link
Hmmm, ok, forget the question of "why is this story surfacing now?" - there is something else a little more interesting going on here. Ok, so scientists have finally made the groundbreaking discovery that pigment is the main factor in red heads sensitivity to the sun, and not witchcraft and sorcery as has been supposed up until now. Once the earth-shaking, paradigm destroying implications of that have sunk in, reread the bolded section of the article. Now re-read the headline. Now reread the bolded section. I'm used to the media exagerrating things and trying to create attention-getting headlines, but this is my first encounter with an article whose contents flatly contradicted the headline. The headline states, as if it were a fact, "Pigment Makes Redheads More Prone to Skin Cancer", while one of the scientists who did the research says that there is no definite link and that they aren't even sure if their discovery is important in any way. Maybe I've been out of the loop too much, but when did the news media start resorting to out-and-out lying in order to "sell" their articles? I know that they come pretty close to lying with political headlines, but they can get away with it because politics is almost always open to subjective interpretation. But stating the exact opposite of what the scientific research they are reporting on indicates?
I know the media has been steadily declining for years and years, going from being somewhat respectable to being a group that relies on sensationalism and blowing things out of proportion in order to manufacture news, but this is my first encounter with something where there's no "spin", no "different perspective", just a lie. A harmless lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless. So, since I know almost everyone on this forum is more interested and informed on media and politics than I am, I have a question: Is this a unique mistake, or are more and more things like this starting to show up? Or, is it already prevalent?
My hypothesis is that the media is so powerful and influential now that they just don't really care what they say or report anymore because they know the masses are going to eat it up regardless, and if anyone does complain then they'll just manufacture a story on the complaint, so it's a win-win situation for them. Anyone else feel this way?
,
