Continuing the discussion from Car accidents aren't accidents:
From the NY Times the other day:
But the occasion for pomp and pep suddenly turned tragic when a car plowed into the crowd near the end of the parade, killing four people, including a 2-year-old boy, and injuring at least 49, law enforcement and hospital officials said.
…and so on and on for ten paragraphs before we finally get
The driver, identified as Adacia Avery Chambers, was arrested on charges of driving under the influence.
Until you read ten paragraphs in, the story is the same as usual: a car randomly decided to kill people.
(The coverage today in other papers does focus a bit more on the driver, now that’s she’s been to court and faces charges.)
I can remember when “journalism” required one to put the most crucial facts first: who, what, when, where. Editorials and weekly/monthly pieces were for the “why”.
Now, it’s: tell a story, color it with your own opinions, maybe give a few facts buried deep within. And for heavens’ sakes get it out quickly, before any fact-checking can occur.
My favorite line was how reports stated the crash was not part of the parade. Shaking my head…
A few years ago we locally had a case of a woman driving up onto a footpath, smacking down a bunch of people.
It turned out to be a simple case of panic and feet on the wrong pedals. The driver meant to hit the brakes, but somehow hit the accelerator, and then in utter panic as the car took off tried to hit the brakes harder, and carnage ensued.
The article sounded like it was another Boston Bombing. It may be a simple huge fuckup by the perhaps drunk driver.
This topic was automatically closed after 480 days. New replies are no longer allowed.