Shoddy reporting, deliberate?

[Horn6721]

Sloppy shoddy inaccurate reporting goes on all the time, in both Lib leaning and Right leaning outlets.
This is but ONE example. I wonder if it was allowed to be posted yo tug at heart strings?
from HuffPo ( and again right leaning sites/ outlets do shoddy reporting as well)
"Dan Ryan and his wife make a combined $2,700 a month, (32,4K)an amount that is too high for them to qualify for food stamps but too low to feed them and their three children. "


As I read that article the amount they reported they made seemed pretty low to not qualify for SNAP( food stamps)

this from the Mass gov't site.
How much a family of 5 can make and still qualify for SNAP
"5 people $55,819The Link

Additionally a family with a disabled person has a much higher threshold.

This is something so easy to check huffPo mut know their core audience pretty well.

Everyone who NEEDS help for food medical etc should get it. But either through laziness or deliberate misstating of facts many media are trying to create the impression that we meanies are starving people. Food insecurity is a hot catch phrase .

again this shoddy or misstating of facts is NOT limited to any one side.
This particular one was just so obviously wrong.

 

[CanaTigers]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

Cana
I do understand your point.
There are so many reasons / theories offered on why people ' choose" to do destructive behavior I doubt we could ever actually identify one who is KNOWIINGLY completely responsible

The other question is are you ok with allowing someone to lay in the street dying?

I'd settle for
1. media checking facts before writing stories like the one above ( but not limited to just this one story)
2. getting people who will accept responsibility for lesser but still costly areas and not be so quick to get a ' free gov't check"( I am not referring to this family in this story)

 

[Mr. Deez]

It is likely shoddy reporting. Keep in mind that journalists benefit most from their articles being sensational and timely (meaning publishing them before other journalists break the story). Back in the day, a journalist had to verify his facts carefully (which takes time and effort) because it used to be fairly easy to sue a sloppy journalist for libel.

In the early '70s, the US Supreme Court made libel cases involving political speech almost impossible (a rare example of liberal tort reform), so journalists now have far less reason to carefully verify facts. I don't see a potential case here even under the old law, but the sloppiness that the law now encourages is likely pervasive for the industry as a whole and impacts every story we read.

 

[Larry T. Spider]

I have pretty much quit watching the news for this reason. Most of the national news is slanted one driection on purpose. Local news just misses the facts way too often. My district was having a bond vote last week and the news did a 30 sec story on it and somehow managed to leave out the largest expediture which is a new high school. I dont think that was intentional, just lazy or stupid.