Thread: People very sick after eating wild pig

Originally Posted by Tahr

Interesting how we see things differently. It seems to me that the change was to make it more truthful by correcting a mistake or assumption. That's good journalism in my view, not bad journalism.

Sure the journo could have done some fact checking, but at least they made the change. That's more than what we often do on here.

Lmao hows that good journalism??? Before you release a story get the FACTS right first, thats good journalism, not state something you havnt checked or dont really know for sure but hey, it sounds good and it sells papers. Shit journalism is what it is, and the truth in the end comes out so what are they going to do.....of cause they going to correct the false crap they released as they look like complete knobs if they didnt. Funny how we see things differently is right,

Originally Posted by deer243

Lmao hows that good journalism??? Before you release a story get the FACTS right first, thats good journalism, not state something you havnt checked or dont really know for sure but hey, it sounds good and it sells papers. Shit journalism is what it is, and the truth in the end comes out so what are they going to do.....of cause they going to correct the false crap they released as they look like complete knobs if they didnt. Funny how we see things differently is right,

Its a glass half empty or half full thing. I see it as a genuine journalistic attempt on informing the public about not buying game meat from a dodgy source. We all know that it goes on.
They only mistake that they made was in one sentence suggesting a causal link between the dodgy game meat market and the wild pork saga. That is was they redacted.