Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The media's against us- without even trying

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Heinz_Guderian, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Note it's not a CAR accident, and if it proves the car driver's fault, it will be out of the news by the time this is decided. So anyone reading this will be left in no doubt that bikes cause accidents:


    Sunday March 19, 08:19 AM

    Man dies, another injured in motorbike accident

    A man has been killed and another seriously injured in a motorbike crash near Wellington in the central-west of New South Wales.

    Police say the men were riding on a motorbike when it collided with a car on Mudgee Road at 5pm AEDT yesterday.

    A police spokeswoman, Sarah Vickery, says they were thrown from their bike.

    "The rider, a 39-year-old Wellington man died at the scene. His passenger, a 21-year-old Wellington man, lost one of his legs and was taken to Wellington Hospital before being airlifted to Orange Base Hospital with serious injuries," she said.

    "The two men and two women who were in the car were taken to Wellington Hospital with minor injuries before being released a short time later. A report will be prepared for the information of the coroner."

  2. It doesn't give much info about how it happened and the passenger probably won't remember much so the driver of the car could say almost anything ,but in saying that the guy's on the bike could've been doing warp speed around a corner and not seen the car , just like a friends brother a couple of years ago , 18yr old on a cbr250 coming around a blind corner in the dark on a huge lean angle but he couldn't see around the corner and didn't know there was a car parked on the side of the road ..... he is sadly missed ........
  3. the media reports an accident where the vehicle with the critically injured individuals is the focus of the headline. WOW what scumbags lets go burn the worlds media organisations down.

    if it said 'car accident' you probably would of said 'i can't believe the media IGNORED the motorcyclists plight, instead focusing on the car whose occupants had only minor injuries!' :roll:
  4. It would've been fairer to say; "A motorcyclist was killed today after a collision between his bike and a car. His pillion, who lost a leg in the crash, was airlifted to hospital. The occupants of the car were not hurt."

    A few months ago, I got annoyed by police reports on crashes that involved bikes and cars. In all cases they were saying where the bike hit the car, which assumed that that the rider is at fault, by default.

    Carla Koslovich is a senior constable with the Victoria Police media liasion unit. She, and her colleagues report in on Red Symons ABC Melbourne morning show on events that have occured overnight. I emailed Red and asked if he could ask her why they always say this, and why can't they just simply report that a crash between a car and bike occured, and leave out any implied assumptions of fault.

    Red actually brought it up. I was just waking up and getting myself out of bed. I was groggy when I heard this, but after her dissmissive and somewhat pontificating reply where she more or less said, "I s'pose that it was a motorcyclist who wrote THAT..." I was fired up, to say the least. A great way to start the day - aggravated. It's bad enough having to get up at 6am....

    In other words, they don't give a rat's arse. And it's a mindset that we face in all areas, whether it's the police, government, industry in general, or the general public.
  5. Oh another bleeding heart :cry: :roll: Get over it

    All it states is that there was a crash involving a car and a motorcycle, and there were pretty serious injuries involved.
    Get off the drugs, they're making you paranoid
  6. Nope. Read it again.

    It says, "...the men were riding on a motorbike when it collided with a car..."

    That infers that the bike was in the wrong.

    Two years ago, my car and a 'roo had a coming together. While the 'roo is now hopping around in that great outback in the sky, the car suffered $5,000 worth of damage.

    In the insurance report, should I have said:
    (a) I hit the roo as it bounced out into the road in front of me or
    (b) A roo hit the car as I travelled along X road

    Which of the above statements makes it sound more beneficial to me? That I hit the roo or that it hit me?

    Thing is, it clouted the side of the car as it tried to cross the road at the same time as I was driving past that point. I'd personally go with option (b).

    It's the same for the bike crash. One gives the impression that the rider's in the wrong, when in fact it may be the other way around. Or it may not. But to pre-judge in such a manner is both unfair to whatever legal process that may be in place, or for the victims' families when they have to read this stuff.
  7. Then she needs to be tied up and spanked!!!

    Have you seen how gorgeous that girl is??????

    mmmmmmmmmmmmm C A R L A :) :roses: :smileysex: :roses:
  8. It's not infering anything, that's just how you're perceiving it based on a few selective words.

    We dont know who's fault it was, and it very well could have been the bikers fault, 95% of people on this forum are too quick to point the finger at the driver in situations like this, like I said, the bleeding heart syndrome.

    The majority of people will read that and think "what a terrible accident, hope everyone recovers"
    "goddamn bikes always cause crashes"
  9. No, it simply states the fact that a motorcycle collided with a car (which it did). Had it said "a motorcycle hit a car" then yes that would be implying fault.
  10. Certainly have. ALthough I'd be reluctant to publicly espouse your other comments. Her husband's a member of the SOG....

    And they've just had their first child recently.

    Here's some info on her.

  11. considering the amount of time the reporter had to put together the story (a few seconds before moving on to the next accident) i don't think they would have gone out of their way to subtly work in an anti-biking slant.

    i work for a private company as a broadcast media reporter and the workload doesn't allow time for agenda pushing. there is barely time to absorb the subject at hand before worrying about what is next.
  12. I s'pose that we could argue the semantics of this til the cows come home.

    The statement though, regardless of whether you use the word "collide" or "hit" or whatever, does infer that the bike hit the car and whatever conclusions that the reader can draw from that. A more neutral way of phrasing it would have been to say; 'the car and bike collided'. The original statement is placing an emphasis on the actions of the bike.

    And yeah, I may be an overly sensitive, paranoia, conspiracy theorist, and as a motorcyclist, I'm probably justified in being so. I've seen a fair bit of motorcycling politics over the past 30 or so years, and what governments have tried to impose on us. So, when they report road crashes involving bikes, I'd like to see this reported impartially.

    Is that too much to ask?

    Last week, local traffic police were on the local ABC talking about the holiday weekend and traffic matters. In particular the woman talked about a group of riders up around Mallacoota in the state's far east and how one of them crashed and was airlifted to the Alfred.

    She said that "motorcyclists were a bit of a worry". As far as I'm aware, it was the only incident involving a bike and rider. She spoke about numerous ones concerning 4 wheeled vehicles, but no comments about them being "a bit of a worry" were forthcoming.

    Funny thing was, they were talking about a significant visible police presence along the Princes Highway. But all I saw was a lone speed camera near the Billabong Roadhouse outside of Bairnsdale, a 4WD copper on one of the backroads heading out of Maffra who pulled over and waved me by, and a general uniform sedan in Rosedale who was pulling into the local cop shop there.

    So, please excuse me when I take whatever PR the traffic cops spout with a grain of salt, and a healthy dose of skepticism.
  13. Some would regard that attitude as sloppy and lazy reporting. Not that I'm infering that you're sloppy and lazy, but journos are renowned for getting the easy story, particuarly the ones that may grab the headlines instead of page 20. When you're competing with dozens of other journos for top billing, it tends to sway the way that they approach the job.

    When we did an emergency management course a few years back, as part of what used to be called "Displan", we had a couple of television journos address the course. One of the biggest things to be wary of, when talking to them, say from an SES, Police or firey's perspective, was to say as little as possible, as you would not know the whole picture. In fact, he said, it's best to say nothing and refer them to the PR manager or whoever's authorised to release public statements.

    At a fire at a local power station, which supplies briquettes to industry, a journo asked a volunteer who was in attendance what the go was. The fellow said that the joint was stuffed and it would be out of production for months. This went to air and the company (Energy Brix) had to go into damage control because its customers started looking elsewhere for their fuel. The fact was that the fire only affected one part of the plant and not the part that actually made the product.

    This was a classic example of a journo listening to someone who wasn't authorised to give interviews on the behalf of his combatent agency, and who didnt' check the facts before it went to air. Because the reporter wanted to get to air first, and thought that this was a good scoop, it had the potential to cost an employer a lot of money and possible lost jobs.

    In the case of the bike crash, it's just as easy to say that the bike and car collided, rather than the bike collided with the car. It's a neutral report with no ambiguity for apportioning blame.

    Anyway, I'm on nightshift and it's back to bed for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here debating this stuff. I'd be out riding (and hopefully not colliding with any cars...)

    Have a good weekend/week, folks.
  14. Certainly agree that there can be an anti-motorcycle bias to the media, just don't think that this particular article was written with any ulterior motive other than just presenting the facts. Have noticed a similar thing with reports of accidents involving heavy vehicles - usually always seems to be "..car collided with a truck/bus", rarely the other way around.
    Edit: Interestingly according to Google - 17 cases of "truck collided with car" but 110 cases of "car collided with a truck" in the Australian media. For bikes it's 27 counts of motorcycles colliding with cars, 7 counts of cars colliding with motorcycles. Make of that what you will (I have some tinfoil handy if you need to make a hat :LOL:).
  15. I'm all for education. What's wrong with that statement? How would it be better presented (presuming that this question isn't also "shocking grammar"....)

    As the editor (amateur, of course) of the MRA's newsletter, I'm always looking for better ways to present it, including the grammar, spelling, verbosity and so on. My vocation is in an engineering field, not the arts.
  16. You'll notice I removed that part of my post :wink: Wasn't really bad grammar - more so bad journalism. Imagine if every newspaper had headlines like "The car and bike collided today" :LOL:. Journos seem to write to a particular style, you generally find that popular phrases get reused quite often.
  17. And yet the media will tell you that scooters are great on fuel , everyone can ride them and there good for the environment . Yet a lot of scooter riders wear no gear apart from a helmet ......talk about a double standard .. but hey you have to get over it , it happens every day
  18. Actually, there was a pisser of a headline in one of today's papers. Hang five while I go look for it....

    I'm back.


    "Woman drowns feeding ducks" says the headline. Does this mean that a woman drowned ducks that were feeding, which is what the headline says, or in reality, that she drowned WHILE feeding ducks...

    That's a good one for Jay Leno's "Headlines" segment on his show...
  19. If your going to google her you need to get her name right! -
    Carla Coslovich