Media Portrayals of Events

Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
2,035
Add to that the fact that many stories online are ghost-written [often without the author being told] and that most writers are just filling word quotas with guff. That's often why when you want a specific piece of information from an article, you'll find the only useful part is one or two sentences which are buried under four or five paragraphs of tripe.

Source: being a freelance writer.

EDIT: quite a funny example is when I was asked to ghost-write an article for someone else who was an "expert" in starting businesses. I have no idea how to start a business but I pulled in a load of stuff in from around the internet and whammo, pro business-starting advice article. It was put under his name so that other people could learn from his long period of 'expertise'. But nope, it was me and I don't have a Danny LaRue. He didn't care, he just wanted clicks and for people to come to his website.

EDIT2: I was also asked to write a similar article for another woman. I looked her up and found that she had a history of scamming and child molestation. Still wrote it.

The part about only one or two sentences being useful is such a thing now, on opinion pieces essentially padded out with history rehash of the underlying "story" for entire first half (skip), then one sentence on what's actually happened recently of note (read), then comment from Gov department, business, interested party etc, which you always skip as it's simply a boiler plate response not addressing the part you read.

Generally speaking I read Sky, Guardian then random right wing nonsense people point out (Mail, Express..) or appear on my Google feed for laughs, mostly for an alternative reality take. I stopped reading the BBC a long time ago as a lot of the time they just didn't point out what the issue, controversy was about, neutral to the point irrelevant.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
14,179
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
So in my view, as just a guy on the t'internet, is that this should have been a mitigating factor in the sentencing. They seem to be blaming the entire accident on him reaching over for his soft drink.

Also how is jailing this man fixing anything!? A waste of tax payers money.

The accident was caused because he was reaching for his drink and not paying attention on what was in front of him.. The fact that 6 other cars avoided the car stopped on an active lane says they were paying attention and he wasnt.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,899
article on legal aids cuts - could he afford a decent defence

Over the past decade, the legal aid system has been dramatically impacted by financial cuts. The 2013 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) saw £350 million knocked off of the £2 billion legal aid budget, resulting in vast numbers of people losing access to much-need legal support. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been the UK’s marginalised and vulnerable groups who have felt the impact of these cuts most heavily

..

According to Bolt Burdon Kemp, 80% of British people had access to free or affordable legal help in 1949. By 2007, this figure had dropped to 27% and as further austerity measures came into play in 2013, this figure dropped further still. Unsurprisingly, the UK’s poorest citizens are amongst those hit hardest by cuts to legal aid.

 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,301
Location
Vvardenfell
article on legal aids cuts - could he afford a decent defence

Probably not. Legal Aid tapers until (IIRC) a salary of £28k per year, at which point you get none. The rule was also changed some years back whereby people found not guilty could claim legal costs back. Not any more. It's entirely possible to be found not guilty, but be completely bankrupt. Many will just plead guilty because it's easier. But no-one cares because secretly (or frequently publically) eveyone assumes the person in the dock must be guilty or they wouldn't be there.
 
Back
Top Bottom