How much TV is faked for effect?

[Jared]

How do you watch the news or read a newspaper? everything is presented in such away to convey certain ideas/ points even the selection of written words - exactly how to phrase something to get the best 'impact' perhaps.

Think it's even worse than that. Journalists don't seem to make any attempt not to be biased. Studies or reports that do confirm their bias will get reported, irrespective of the quality of the study or report. Studies that do not confirm their bias get largely ignored. Essentially presenting a twisted view of reality.

And that's before things like the Murray Gell-Mann effect. http://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

 

[Robson Valley]

Remember the original Star Trek series?
Take the original transporter set and turn it upside down.
Odd how that resembles the transporter set on Voyageur.

Dropping glitter dust through a spotlight behind a mask made people come and go with ease.

 

[John Fenna]

Think it's even worse than that. Journalists don't seem to make any attempt not to be biased. Studies or reports that do confirm their bias will get reported, irrespective of the quality of the study or report. Studies that do not confirm their bias get largely ignored. Essentially presenting a twisted view of reality.

And that's before things like the Murray Gell-Mann effect. http://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

Erm - I am a journalist... specializing in gear reviews for outdoor publications and try very hard not to be at all biased....

 

[John Fenna]

Remember the original Star Trek series?
Take the original transporter set and turn it upside down.
Odd how that resembles the transporter set on Voyageur.

Dropping glitter dust through a spotlight behind a mask made people come and go with ease.

I remember watching the first series as a kid but gave up on it as I grew up...

 

[MartiniDave]

That's the mistake you made right there John, you shouldn't have grown up!

 

[John Fenna]

That's the mistake you made right there John, you shouldn't have grown up!

You could be onto something there!

 

[Goatboy]

I trust folk like yourself Mr. Fenna, but not all gear reviewers are the same. I had a rather prominent editor and his main reviewer fall out with me over their biased reports. Things tended to do well in reviews if they were prominent advertisers.
Some folk like yourself I have no worries about their impeachability. Always found you to be an honest chap.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[Jared]

Erm - I am a journalist... specializing in gear reviews for outdoor publications and try very hard not to be at all biased....

Apologies for the over generalisation, definitely intended just to be criticism of a some of the online main stream media when covering serious global issues.

 

[Palaeocory]

I'm reminded of a BBC documentary about polar bears with David Attenborough, where the baby polar bears in the den was 'stock footage' and shown along with the rest of the documentary. It led to a bit of a kerfuffle. It would have kind of ruined it if there was a little disclaimer at the bottom that said '*stock footage' - I guess some people felt like it was fakery, but I didn't feel lied to... I guess there's a line though...

It's nice to know the BBC have strict guidelines on misleading audiences!

Now, too bad commercials aren't as strictly monitored, crazy face cream adverts drive me nuts...!!!

 

[Herbalist1]

I trust folk like yourself Mr. Fenna, but not all gear reviewers are the same. I had a rather prominent editor and his main reviewer fall out with me over their biased reports. Things tended to do well in reviews if they were prominent advertisers.
Some folk like yourself I have no worries about their impeachability. Always found you to be an honest chap.


Yeah - I've become quite cynical about many of the reviews in a certain popular bushcraft magazine. Too often there has been a product advertisement right next to a review where the same product gets a 'best in test' rating. That in itself would be ok - I'd pay to advertise my shiny new product next to a review if it had received a good rating but often the test criteria seem biased to favour the advertised product!

 

[John Fenna]

Most of my reviews are favourable.. mainly because I chose the gear I want to review and am experienced enough to chose things that would probably work for me.
If something fails badly I do not put a review in for publication but send the supplier a list of "bullet points" that need looking at unless they want a massive number of returns and a bad rep and all my reviews are "stand alone" not "comparison" reviews so no one comes in last... you could review all the Leatherman tools against each other and find them all excellent tools but as they all have design differences one would be the reviewers favourite for what THEY like but it does not mean it is actually a better tool...just that the reviewer liked it better
When I reviewed for Canoeist I did not get paid, just had free advertising space (and most of the kit I reviewed I got to keep - except the really good stuff like boats!) sometimes the suppliers of kit buy advertising space next to a review if they know it is good (I always send pre-publication copy to suppliers for technical correction ie they can correct factual errors (if I put that the fabric is nylon but it is poly, telephone details mistyped , prices etc) - they get no option to change statements of my opinion on he review item so they know if h review will print up favourably or not and if they want to by advertising in the mag
I never get to know what issue my reviews will appear in - until I get my copy of the mag - so I cannot influence the supplier that way either

 

[dewi]

I used to review for an industry magazine (not bushcraft, another industry) and I was surprised at some of the rubbish I was sent. I wanted to list the positives, but some of the products were so bad I couldn't think of anything to say.

One of the main problems in most industries (including the one I worked in) is that they won't host a negative review, and I think that is terrible... if its a commercial world, how is any supplier going to be held to account for a truly poor product unless someone publicly points it out? Minor flaws are thing, but major defaults are something the consumer needs to know about and more importantly, the manufacturer. The consumer needs to know primarily so they don't waste money on a flawed product, then the manufacturer to make sure future inventories have the issue fixed.

I gave up reviewing when I realised they would never ever publish an honest review unless it was entirely positive, and at the same time with a nice shiny advert along side it. I also gave up on an opinion column when I realised that serious content involving industry legislation was barred from opinion.

 

[Swallow]

One mate was in a make over program for messy people thinking he would get a free decoration of his house. They dumped mess down the back of the cupboards as they were doing the kitchen and then asked him on camera why he'd done that.

Another mate had her weekend seminar filmed as a Channel 4 documentary.

It showed a participant saying

"I did the exercise and it didn't work. Then I did the exercise again and it didn't work."

They cut there.....leaving out the bit

"Then I remembered something you said and I did the exercise again and it worked".