Kiwi Polemicist

April 6, 2009

• Baby Born With Help of John Key (or not)

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

“Baby Born With Help of John Key”: that’s the title of an article in the NZ Herald today. So did Key stop on the side of the road and play catch-the-sprog as a woman delivered a baby on the back seat of her car? Nope. Here’s the first paragraph of the article:

An eye specialists’ outreach tour to a remote area of the Solomon Islands, funded by the auction of John Key’s broken arm cast, took an unexpected turn when they were asked to perform an emergency caesarean.

So John Key broke his arm and sold the cast (presumably cut but unbroken, despite what the article says) to raise money for the Fred Hollows Foundation. Foundation staff went on a trip and happened to be there when an emergency casearean was needed. To say that John Key “helped” with this birth is extremely imaginative at best.

If Key had foreknowledge of the need for an emergency caesarean (a logical impossibility) and had arranged for doctors to be there at the right time, then it could be said that he helped with the birth.

Why does the media publish this sort of tripe? A few ideas:

  • being in a politician’s good books means better access to that politician
  • it’s a slow news day and they need some fillers
  • people actually like this sort of human interest story and do not read critically
  • it’s a story that can be written in a few minutes without leaving a chair
  • the journalist is the product of an education system that doesn’t teach logic and critical thinking

The moral of the story is this: beware of hagiographic nonsense in the media.

Please post a comment and share your thoughts as to why the media publish such nonsense.

Related post:

John Key’s response to his broken arm says a lot

~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. That one is worthy of one of MacDoctor’s spam journalism treatments!

    What a misleading and stupid headline.

    Comment by Madeleine — April 6, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

    • Madeleine: “misleading and stupid” is a charitable description.

      I know children of intermediate age or less who could see that this article is tosh.

      Comment by Kiwi Polemicist — April 6, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

  2. hi john key

    Comment by sherie — May 26, 2009 @ 1:07 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: