Use of language in media reporting: neutral or not?

[mjr]

Cubester is doing his EPQ on media bias

Successor to EPO?

 

[Cubist]

I once read of a piece of research around the use of neutral questioning. Witnesses were asked to watch a clip of a collision between two cars. They were then asked to estimate the speed of the collision, but a third of the group were asked "how fast was the vehicle travelling at the time of the collision?", another third were asked " how fast was the driver going when he nudged into the other car?" The final third were asked " how fast was that idiot going when he smashed into the other car?"

The differences in speed estimation and the subsequent versions of events were all seriously tainted by that single question.

 

[Profpointy]

I guess sheddy means that it's deliberate in that it's an act of free will, rather than that suggesting that the possible consequences are consciously wished by the driver. Almost all bad driving is deliberate in the former sense. Someone overtaking me dangerously because they've underestimated my speed is still a deliberate act, even though they intended to get past me rather than force me off the road.

I did understand the point although my reply was slighlty mischeivious. That said, I don't agree that an accident resulting from (perhaps deliberate) stupidity is not an accident eg drunk driving. If you fell over drunkenly walking it would still be an accident surely? I would not use the term accident for say, deliberately swerving at someone to frighten them but hitting them "by accident" as that would be a misleading use. My point is that most accidents, in any sphere, are avoidable if more sense or judgement had been used so by precluding its use for road "accidents" because blame is (nearly always) involved means precluding its use for nearly everything - then what word can we use instead? "collision" wont do generically - I broke a teacup in a collision with the floor. I still broke a teacup accidentally although I deliberately carried too many teacups at once despite being told not to. Still an accident and I'll still quite rightly get told off

 

[Cubist]

You could actively have fun with the use of language and reporting.

Here's a report from the Daily Cyclechat:

A completely innocent cyclist was today severely inconvenienced and potentially traumatised for life in a murder attempt on Bletchley High Street. Riding in primary as trained to do so, on a beautifully maintained hybrid commuter he was passed at less than the distance recommended in the highway code by the ignorant and entitled driver of an Audi Q5. Our reporter has discovered through seeking unevidenced opinion that the fume and carcinogen belching wankpanzervehicle involved was being driven for an epic 250 metre school run. Passengers Tarquin, 8 and Philomena 10 were uninjured and continue to play their part in keeping the average weight of primary school children over the average.

 

[Tin Pot]

These vehicles just don't seem to be able to stop themselves from following the one in front, like a herd of mindless wildebeest.

Close to reality.

Humans on bikes behave like "normal" humans.

Humans in cars behave like neurotic humans.

 

[robjh]

Passengers Tarquin, 8 and Philomena 10 were uninjured and continue to play their part in keeping the average weight of primary school children over the average.

 

[Cubist]

Yep, unevidenced ranting is rarely completely free of mathematical non sequiturs.....

 

[Profpointy]

I once read of a piece of research around the use of neutral questioning. Witnesses were asked to watch a clip of a collision between two cars. They were then asked to estimate the speed of the collision, but a third of the group were asked "how fast was the vehicle travelling at the time of the collision?", another third were asked " how fast was the driver going when he nudged into the other car?" The final third were asked " how fast was that idiot going when he smashed into the other car?"

The differences in speed estimation and the subsequent versions of events were all seriously tainted by that single question.

I can reccomenend Kurosawa's movie Roshomon. A rape and murder are described very differently by several witnesses, including the culprit, the woman, the ghost of the murdered husband. Has lighter moments for such a dark sounding subject, but is a superior film as you'd expect from Mr K.

 

[Pale Rider]

I witnessed a fatal accident in which a towed car hit a bus stop and killed a child.

My statement - as a passenger in a following car - said the car/towed car joined a roundabout to our right - I had a clear recollection of my driver stopping to give way to it - went around the roundabout and smacked into the bus stop on exit.

My driver said we had followed car/towed car for several hundred metres before it entered the roundabout in front of us.

He was right, goodness knows where I got the idea we had given way to it.

 

[mjr]

A completely innocent cyclist was today severely inconvenienced and potentially traumatised for life in a murder attempt on Bletchley High Street. Riding in primary as trained to do so, on a beautifully maintained hybrid commuter he was passed at less than the distance recommended in the highway code by the ignorant and entitled driver of an Audi Q5.

Well, that's clearly fantasy!

Bletchley doesn't have a High Street

 

[Markymark]

I still think it's better to put effort in how the media treat:

Asylum seekers
Immigrants
Single mums
People on welfare
Etc.

 

[Markymark]

Of course. It's a hot topic over in SC&P. This is about cycling though .

I get that. But getting the media to change the language about cyclists is like getting cyclists to start following the letter of law on the roads. Probably a good idea but much bigger fish to fry and better uses of time.