Are we sitting comfortably?

Then I shall begin. This is a story about a humble chair.

Read this article from the BBC, which adds little to what was broadcast on their breakfast show today. Then go and read this article, about the same chair, at the Guardian.

(The choices of source show my own biases. While I am not ashamed of this, you may want to check out the same story at other news outlets, just for the heck of it.)

My point here is that the BBC report implies the chair, originally owned by author JK Rowling when she was a lot less well off and famous than she is now, was sold at auction. The article implies the sale was by Rowling, tells us how much the chair made at the auction, but doesn’t really tell us who bought it or what the money made might be used for. Anyone that knows Rowling would guess she might donate some or all of the cash to a charity, rather than simply pocket the cash.

As it transpires, when you fill out the details from the Guardian version, Ms Rowling was not selling the chair. She sold it back in 2002, after she’d painted the various words on it. Now, didn’t the BBC article just imply it was Ms Rowling selling the chair? A supposedly impartial news broadcaster, as the BBC keeps telling us it should be, seems to be only telling half the story. Why hold back some of the information? Was it felt unnecessary? Who decided we should think Rowling was selling the chair, which ticks the “celebrity” box at least, when it was the second or third owner of the object selling this time, who made a fair amount of money on the sale and, it turns out, is donating 10 per cent of the proceeds to a Rowling charity?

While you mull that notion over in your mind, consider what other more important and grave news stories may be being moulded to an agenda before they are broadcast or published to us. My favourite parlour game is pointing out errors and omissions in reports which cover things I actually know about. It makes you really stop and wonder how much is missed out or erroneous in coverage of many other things.

Question everything. Believe nothing.

 

UPDATE (10/4/16): It seems the BBC article has been updated to clarify the chain of ownership. This is a good thing, and shows someone pays attention to how things can be, even accidentally, skewed. I feel my original point about media biases and how we should try to be aware of them still stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *