Likely to be an unpopular essay. 

The questions this page will ask is, do news sources present the best information they have, or do they deliberately leave things out in order to make the coverage more entertaining?

And how do you tell? Are some perhaps better than others?

From experience I expect we will get some appalling answers.

Why this page

Years ago I used to listen to a rebroadcast of a digest of the BBC World Service news every morning. It was at a suitable time for my clock radio to be set to it.

One morning they described a battle which a BBC reporter was observing for a particular hill. The reporter said that it had just fallen to the attackers.

The following day in the evening TV news there was video of that same reporter describing that same hill. He said on camera that there were grave fears that the hill would fall within the "next few hours".

With the improvement in communications since then I doubt that such a fraud would be attempted today. But has the attitude changed? 

Think about it

Is "fraud" too harsh?

Imagine you are producing that TV news program and that you have just received that video. And presumably, you know that the hill has since fallen... I mean, the BBC has already broadcast that fact. So you use the video. And after it of course you state that the hill has since fallen. 

Or do you? If what you are broadcasting is information, you must of course add that qualifier.

But if what you are broadcasting is entertainment, you just as surely leave it out. The impression that this is happening right now is far more riveting, and will get you better ratings.

Food for thought?