All newspapers are trying to sell newspapers first and deliver news second. The Guardian is one I've found to be particularly yellow-rag. Look at the following teaser for an article about AIDS:
Grace Matnanga is HIV positive. She is well at the moment but she will be dead in a few years without medicines we in the UK take for granted. A Guardian special investigation follows this human chain of money and power that prevents Grace and nearly 30 million like her from getting the drugs that will save them.
I think that packing this amount of distortion and simplification into 3 sentences is a newsworthy feat in and of itself. Briefly, I could respond to this:
a) She may not be dead in a few years. b) You may "take the drugs" for granted in the UK, but they're not free. They're expensive to produce and distribute. c) The human chain of money and power is not standing in the way of a free pipeline of endless livesaving drugs. Rather, it's the only thing that has a chance in Hades of actually getting the drugs to where they might be useful. d) The drugs will not "save her." These drugs are dangerous, toxic, have side effects that can be fatal, crippling, or impossible to manage; they cause the emergence and transmission of resistant virus; and many people on these drugs die of AIDS anyway.
But here I err in the same way the Guardian does; "brief" discussions aren't really appropriate to convey the complexity of these issues. They may sell newspapers, but seriously, ronebofh, what do you care about that? You should stop paying attention to this pap.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
no subject
Date: 2003-10-09 12:42 pm (UTC)I think that packing this amount of distortion and simplification into 3 sentences is a newsworthy feat in and of itself. Briefly, I could respond to this:
a) She may not be dead in a few years.
b) You may "take the drugs" for granted in the UK, but they're not free. They're expensive to produce and distribute.
c) The human chain of money and power is not standing in the way of a free pipeline of endless livesaving drugs. Rather, it's the only thing that has a chance in Hades of actually getting the drugs to where they might be useful.
d) The drugs will not "save her." These drugs are dangerous, toxic, have side effects that can be fatal, crippling, or impossible to manage; they cause the emergence and transmission of resistant virus; and many people on these drugs die of AIDS anyway.
But here I err in the same way the Guardian does; "brief" discussions aren't really appropriate to convey the complexity of these issues. They may sell newspapers, but seriously,