07 Nov 2005
40% of hunts 'have flouted ban'

You know, philosophically I'm opposed to a ban on hunting with dogs - but this post has nothing to do with either hunting or dogs, and everything to do with the credibility of a major news organization.

The way most news organizations feed RSS is simple: the headline becomes the RSS title field, and the first paragraph of the article becomes the RSS description field. But this is different ... here's the headline on the article:

'Successful start' to hunt season

and here's the first paragraph of the article in question:

Supporters and opponents of fox hunting have both claimed success after the first day of the new season - the first since a ban in England and Wales.

Not until paragraph 4 do we learn that:

Earlier, a report found 40% of hunts had broken the law since it took effect, but supporters dismissed that.

So which is it? The word "alleges", although it appears in the description below, never appears in the actual piece at all! Where did the RSS come from, and why did the BBC change it? Was it an earlier edition of the same story, or a completely different story mixed by faulty software? Or, more ominously, is there a political agenda being displayed here? How many other little tidbits have I gleaned from the BBC (or other MSM news organizations) over RSS that may bear little or no relation to the story at hand?

More than 40% of hunts in England and Wales have defied the hunting ban, a report alleges as the new season begins.

(link) [BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition]

00:00 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

Workers face paycheck pinch

If anything is going to turn the political direction of the country to the left in the next election cycle, this is it.

The trend to weak wage growth, several years old now, has worsened in recent months.

(link) [Christian Science Monitor | Top Stories]

00:00 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link