Max Power Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 The BBC have come under fire for their reporting of the injuries suffered by a TT rider on their news site. They have now taken down the offending words but raised a debate with David Cretney asking if such details should be allowed when reporting on inquests etc. Manx Radio give very little information by comparison, http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/inquest-hears-details-of-tt-riders-death/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 What were the words? Here's the article as it is now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-38968978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) Did his head come off? If you are going to crash at 160 mph you're at risk of dismemberment ... is it a problem to explicitly tell people that? Edited February 16, 2017 by Chinahand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Is it necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Did his head come off? Makes that neological euphemism "life changing injury" seem somehow rather inadequate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I have not read the article but I find it difficult to comprehend that people are more upset about the reporting of the injuries than that people are killed and suffer life long debilitating injuries so the IoM can make a few quid and prop up the IoM's tourist injury. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 The original article, on teletext read... "A motorbike racer was decapitated when his front tyre burst and caused a high-speed crash during practice for the TT races, an inquest has heard. Paul Shoesmith... (continues) "catastrophic" and "unforeseen" tyre failure... So basically the 'decapitated' has become "... was "killed." The rest of the report is more or less the same as when I read it this morning at 6am. Was it necessary? Who would think it unnecessary and why? Being factual, an'that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I don't think it is necessary to detail that type of information. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Is the TT different from anything else though? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/730932/Croydon-tram-crash-killed-victim-decapitated-head-derail 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I don't think it is necessary to detail that type of information. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Well I now know how he died. I did not before. I expect that the purpose of article was to inform people the reason for his death. If Cretney is really objecting to the word decapitated in the original article and that the report is factually accurate I think he would have been better keeping his mouth shut as all he has done is draw additional attention to the matter. Sometimes if you don't like something it is better to stay schtum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I don't think it is necessary to detail that type of information. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Other than accurately reporting what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 What this thread needs is a considered opinion from ManxTaxPayer. She'd be all over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I don't think it is necessary to detail that type of information. It doesn't really serve a purpose. Apart from openness. I can think of many articles I have read online, in the papers and motorcycle mags that is pure sensationalist shite and serves no purpose whatsoever, other than selling copies. Inquests into fatalities on the roads, either open or closed should be open and honest and all details made available to anyone who wants to know them. I sit on the fence regarding the TT, but I think the general public, who's support is needed to continue the racing, should know all the ins and outs in order to form proper opinions on whether or not to give that support. I also don't like censorship and being told what I should know and what I shouldn't. The more we are kept in the dark, the less support will be forthcoming and that will not be good for the future of closed road racing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I suppose it emphasises it was quick.....nay instant. If we accept that the TT has inherent danger, of which the riders and their families are fully aware, why then do we object to the details of incidents being in the public domain?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.