username_the_next

I experienced this first hand in 1999; a family member drowned in a national park. Three different news stations ran to the scene, spoke to people who claimed they were witnesses, and ended up reporting three different versions of "how" she died.

I had to go to the park service to pick up her personal effects, and I spoke to the first park ranger to be on the scene, and the ranger who built the rescue rig to pull her out of the rocks. They both told me NONE of the three reports were true. These poor souls were very traumatized by trying and failing to save a life, and all I could do is be there to listen to their story.

Why wasn't their story on the news? Because the news crews weren't supposed to interfere with the scene, so they just grabbed passersby. Those passersby said whatever they guessed had happened without knowing for certain, and the crews beamed their "breaking report" back to HQ before any corroboration.

It really infuriated me for a time; 15 years later, I can put myself in the shoes of all the different parties a little better. The reporters were expected to send a report back ASAP because their bosses wanted it on the air sooner than the other stations. The passersby wanted to know exactly what happened themselves, so had their own ideas, and were encouraged to share them. And after the initial break, the facts were just inconvenient - and ultimately, didn't change anything.

You know in your heart what happened. If you misrepresented your story for profit, you have to live with that. If you have presented all things as objectively as you can, then anything other people say to challenge that is just noise.

the concept of an inflexible language only really applies to dead languages.

Heh, illegitimi non carborundum ... dude.

(But you're mostly correct!)