JOurnalism: This is kind of amazing to me. Heres a very well-researched story about the military using the F-22 in combat over Syria. Its a story about how much the F-22 costs to operate, but take a look at the headline and read the first few paragraphs of the story. Sounds like it cost $79 million just to fly one of these things over Syria! Crazy right? Wow, much expensive. Then read the rest of the story, where the author is honest enough to show that it ACTUALLY only cost $3.9 million to use the F-22. Its the overall cost of the mission that cost $79, and $75.2 million of that was the cost of Tomahawk missiles. Tomahawks are often used without fighter/bombers, so adding this to the cost of the F-22 is just totally insane. Why isnt this a story about the cost of Tomahawk missiles instead? Its especially interesting because as a reporter, I look at this story and its written in a way that would never require a correction. Even in the top of the story, where it appears the F-22 cost $79, there is a phrase that notes $79 million is the cost of the total mission, not just the planes. The story is wildly misleading in scope, and yet totally accurate in substance. Its even more interesting to me since the author provides all the evidence you need to see how misleading the story is. Its almost like a hidden confession. Its crazy how many games a good writer can play. Beware of journalists. thedailybeast/articles/2014/09/24/first-u-s-stealth-jet-attack-on-syria-cost-79-million.html
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:03:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015