Is the issue here the article (which appears to be weak anyway), or the presentation of it with an outrageous headline?
This is the logic that turns “we don't know why the plan crashed” into “crash may have been terrorist action”. Pfui.
Anonymous
Excellent question. The issue is actually more the presentation of the content and the 'context'. The fact that conclusions are actually a best guess is buried in the article (nothwithstanding the fact that they are bad guesses — really bad in my opinion). The headline and opening paragraphs are all written as factual – which is openly misleading (intentional or not).
So whether or not Ad Age (Bradley) intended to be sensational is not the issue. Regardless of intent, it is sensational and not factual at all.
Unfortunatley it is a little like taking a comment and it warping and transforming via gossip as it's passed from one to another. However, this is Ad Age's article — and the stuy was conducted by Ad Age. So there really is no excuse.
Is the issue here the article (which appears to be weak anyway), or the presentation of it with an outrageous headline?
This is the logic that turns “we don't know why the plan crashed” into “crash may have been terrorist action”. Pfui.
Excellent question. The issue is actually more the presentation of the content and the 'context'. The fact that conclusions are actually a best guess is buried in the article (nothwithstanding the fact that they are bad guesses — really bad in my opinion). The headline and opening paragraphs are all written as factual – which is openly misleading (intentional or not).
So whether or not Ad Age (Bradley) intended to be sensational is not the issue. Regardless of intent, it is sensational and not factual at all.
Unfortunatley it is a little like taking a comment and it warping and transforming via gossip as it's passed from one to another. However, this is Ad Age's article — and the stuy was conducted by Ad Age. So there really is no excuse.