I wasn't going to post on this one since I don't work for the Globe or New York Times. But I do have to say there is a difference between a poorly written story and one with an agenda.
MeEscape wrote:
Quote:
|
the majority of newspaper readers rarely read more than the headline and maybe the first few lines or a caption for a picture. Do you really think the articles on Boston.com are posted to be reviewed? Or that they represent journalism?
|
While I agree that many people who read publications like the Boston Herald, New York Post etc and primarily get their "News" from Fox are Headline readers and rarely go beyond the caption in the photos I've found that folks who read the Globe actually read it.
I don't understand what your comment about articles on Boston dot Com mean? The article that was in my hardcopy of the paper this morning was also on Boston dot Com.
MeEscape wrote:
Quote:
|
I was disappointed was that Mr. Levenson’s disclaimer was at the end of the article on the second page.
|
The article was poorly written because, while the catalist was the accident in Maine, it dealt with the New England states that do not have mandated boating education and was not clear on that point. It also did not outline the significance of an unlighted boat on the water at night and as you point out it didn't mention it or say the incident remains under investigation until the end of the article.
As I pointed out in the Speed Limits thread, Mass has a speed limit but what law enforcement is crying out for is boater education. NH has boater education and no speed limit and NH doesn't have nearly the problem Mass does when it comes to boating issues and from what I've read in the press, NH law enforcement says speed limits aren't needed in that state.
A poorly written artilce is just that, poorly written. It is not necessarily someone with an agenda.