|
Title: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: tikay on October 13, 2015, 01:38:11 PM The Times front page headline today was....... "Failing Hospital pays boss £1m a year to cut costs". There then followed the usual journalistic hatchet job. Quoting "Patient Concern", "It's mind blowing, to throw this sort of money around, & it is an insult to patients". When you read the article though, the facts are..... Consultant Accountants were engaged at a cost of £1 million, with the top man getting £500,000, & his 4 fellow Accountants £125,000 each. The Hospital Trust lost £31 million last year, & these 5 guys were engaged to reduce that loss. If they (sensibly) reduce that loss by £5 or £10 milly, how is that a bad thing? And yes, there is a ton of waste in the NHS, but I can't see how this deserves such a hatchet job. If they fail, yeah, get stuck in, but what is the Trust supposed to do when it can't manage it's budget properly? Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: DungBeetle on October 13, 2015, 01:49:39 PM "And yes, there is a ton of waste in the NHS, but I can't see how this deserves such a hatchet job. If they fail, yeah, get stuck in, but what is the Trust supposed to do when it can't manage it's budget properly?"
Fine to do this if they fire the people they already have employed to manage the budgets who have failed so comprehensibly. But will that happen? Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: tikay on October 13, 2015, 01:53:34 PM "And yes, there is a ton of waste in the NHS, but I can't see how this deserves such a hatchet job. If they fail, yeah, get stuck in, but what is the Trust supposed to do when it can't manage it's budget properly?" Fine to do this if they fire the people they already have employed to manage the budgets who have failed so comprehensibly. But will that happen? We don't know yet, do we? I'd much rather the story was reported in a more positive way to start with. If they fail, yeah, go ahead, get stuck in. No mention is made of the reasons - which may or may not be honourable - why the Trust lost £31 million last year. How do we know that was not incompetence? THAT is where the problem began, whatever the reasons may have been. Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: tikay on October 13, 2015, 01:54:50 PM NHS spends £1 million to save £10 million How about that, for starters? It's all knock knock knock stuff. Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: doubleup on October 13, 2015, 02:27:05 PM Headlines are now completely designed to accord and reinforce the beliefs of readers. So in this case the belief is that the NHS is wasteful and its employees are incompetent and overpaid. In the absence of actual news (men biting dogs) making readers comfortable with their beliefs keeps them coming back. Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: tikay on October 13, 2015, 02:31:39 PM Headlines are now completely designed to accord and reinforce the beliefs of readers. So in this case the belief is that the NHS is wasteful and its employees are incompetent and overpaid. In the absence of actual news (men biting dogs) making readers comfortable with their beliefs keeps them coming back. That all makes sense, yes. A shame really, I expect better from a quality newspaper - I want the facts, not their opinions. Title: Re: Bad journalism - a sign of The Times? Post by: RED-DOG on October 13, 2015, 02:39:22 PM It's not a sign of the times, or The Times for that matter. It was ever thus.
|