Journalists or Churnalists?

Great example of Churn.

In the last 24 hours I've come across two glaring examples of nonsense masquerading as journalism. It's nothing new, but the routine nature and frequency of this it never ceases to amaze me.

In the first instance, Bolt posts his characteristic offhand reference to the recent casualties in Afghanistan. He states that the multiple KIAs are the worst since Long Tan (18th August, 1966).

 It is our worst day of military losses since Long Tan.

He's simply wrong.

On 28th February 1970, 8 RAR lost 9 KIA and 15 WIA in two separate mine incidents in the Long Hais during Operation Hammersley.

I remember it well, as we'd been in country a little over a week, and we were briefed pretty comprehensively about the details of the tragedy in the hope that lessons would be learnt.

So what, you may say. After all, he's making a valid comparative point, and should be allowed a little historical licence.

Problem is, he calls himself a journalist.

First year journalism students learn about the critical importance of accuracy. Perhaps this explains his contempt of academics in journalism.

The second instance is related more to political spin than journalism, with Gladstone Port's Corporation's CEO continually denying a connection between dredging and fish deaths.

He says it often, here is one example from a report in the SMH -

The GPC also says there is no scientific evidence to suggest the project to date has had any effect that would contribute to the loss of marine life or disease in fish.

Evidence is easy to find.

It's possible that opionistas, bloggers and maybe spinning CEOs don't understand the power of Google - specifically Google Scholar.

I wish it had been around when I was a student. But I guess I still am. At age 65 it's liberating.