|
Post by RickW on Apr 24, 2009 12:46:26 GMT -5
So, this is the kind of thing that aggravates me. I see this headline on the CBC website, (normally a reasonably reliable news outlet.) You'd think it was bad news, from the looks of it, the kind of bad news everyone is tired of. But when you read the story, it's good news. They were expected to lose a bunch of money, they didn't lose as much as the analysts thought they would, they have been shoring up their financial position, and the share price went up. So the news is not that they lost money - that was expected. The story is that they're not as bad off as everyone thought they'd be. So why is the headline misrepresenting the story? Ford loses $1.43B US in Q1www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/04/24/ford-earnings-firstq.html
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 24, 2009 12:53:57 GMT -5
It strikes me as accurate, Rick. You seem to be faulting it for a lack of the proper spin. I'd prefer headlines and stories that provide the facts without lobbying me about how to respond to the facts.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 12:55:07 GMT -5
So, this is the kind of thing that aggravates me. I see this headline on the CBC website, (normally a reasonably reliable news outlet.) You'd think it was bad news, from the looks of it, the kind of bad news everyone is tired of. But when you read the story, it's good news. They were expected to lose a bunch of money, they didn't lose as much as the analysts thought they would, they have been shoring up their financial position, and the share price went up. So the news is not that they lost money - that was expected. The story is that they're not as bad off as everyone thought they'd be. So why is the headline misrepresenting the story? Ford loses $1.43B US in Q1www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/04/24/ford-earnings-firstq.htmlI don't agree, Rick. I just read the story in its entirety and I think the headline is right on the money. Yes, there was a glimmer of good news buried within, but the facts are clear, it's NOT a good news story by any means and I think it would have been a mischaracterization to try and get your little nugget of interest into the headline.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2009 13:13:33 GMT -5
Yeah, it seems pretty accurate to me as well. I know that it's hard to not see it in light of comparison to GM and Chrysler, but as Bill points out, it's not good news.
But I've seen reporting like I'm supposing that you are seeing this. For instance, I remember a few years ago around Christmas (I can't recall which year) there was pervasive reporting about holiday sales being down. But if you dug a little deeper you'd find that sales were not down -- they were actually up from previous years. They were merely down from projected numbers. It left me wondering why 1) the story was reported as it was, and 2) why it was reported as it was in almost every news source I could find.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Apr 24, 2009 13:15:58 GMT -5
I guess I expect the headline to reflect the news. It was well known that they were going to lose money. But the news was that it was better than expected. The headline is accurate - but it does not reflect, to my mind, what was newsworthy about the story, and presented a black picture, when it was less than black.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 24, 2009 13:20:26 GMT -5
I'm with Rick on this one. The news here is that Ford did way better than expected. The loss itself was not news. Everyone knew that was coming. The relatively small size of the loss is what was "new".
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:21:46 GMT -5
I'm with Rick on this one. The news here is that Ford did way better than expected. The loss itself was not news. Everyone knew that was coming. The relatively small size of the loss is what was "new". If that had been the news, the reporter would have put it in the lede, you guys.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Apr 24, 2009 13:22:20 GMT -5
Actually, what's funny is I just committed the same sin. It's not 'Bad Reporting'. The story was good, and well written. It's the title that annoyed me.
Damned editors - that's what it is. Should have caught that one....
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 24, 2009 13:23:36 GMT -5
I'm with Rick on this one. The news here is that Ford did way better than expected. The loss itself was not news. Everyone knew that was coming. The relatively small size of the loss is what was "new". If that had been the news, the reporter would have put it in the lede, you guys. Can't the reporter be wrong? I'm not suggesting bias or an attempt to skew the coverage or any of that. I mean, can't the reporter make a legitimate error of judgment about what's important in the story?
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:25:29 GMT -5
If that had been the news, the reporter would have put it in the lede, you guys. Can't the reporter be wrong? I'm not suggesting bias or an attempt to skew the coverage or any of that. I mean, can't the reporter make a legitimate error of judgment about what's important in the story? Sure, he or she can. And presumably, he or she can also make the RIGHT decision. I am pretty confident on this one that after all the interviews were done and all the data gathered and considered, the reporter put the emphasis in the right place, because, after all, that is what they are trained to do.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 24, 2009 13:27:08 GMT -5
ps: In any case, this sure seems like an impressive result for Ford. I'm guessing they are going to take a lot of market share away from GM and Chrysler over the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 24, 2009 13:28:13 GMT -5
I'd prefer that reporters tell me what happened and not make judgments about what's important in the story. I get fried when I read a story about national events that veers off into whether it's good or bad for Democrats or Republicans, as if we all had scorecards and cared.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:30:20 GMT -5
Yeh, Ford has been doing quite well amid all the carnage, and it very well could wind up being our Only Car Company before too long.
I would be mildly pleased about that, personally, as I have always preferred Ford vehicles to GM or Chrysler ones, although I still think Chrysler has the others beat in styling.
(Never mind that AWFUL Caliber I drove last week.)
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 24, 2009 13:33:48 GMT -5
I really wish Chrysler cars had better durability reputations, because I am with you 10% that they have great styling right now. The unreconstructed adolescent in me still fantasizes about getting one of these: ![](http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/OmahaJeff/2009FordMustangGTPremiumConvertible.jpg) But I'll probably just stick to the Jetta for a while!
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:34:54 GMT -5
I'd prefer that reporters tell me what happened and not make judgments about what's important in the story. I get fried when I read a story about national events that veers off into whether it's good or bad for Democrats or Republicans, as if we all had scorecards and cared. Well, they make judgments in deciding what to tell you first, and how, and in what NOT to tell you. Writing a news story is a series of judgments! Opinions are another matter, of course.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:36:06 GMT -5
I really wish Chrysler cars had better durability reputations, because I am with you 10% that they have great styling right now. Well, I guess having you with me 10 percent is better than no support at all!
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 24, 2009 13:37:56 GMT -5
Ok, maybe 15%
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on Apr 24, 2009 13:38:57 GMT -5
Jeff.....maybe Bill will loan you his Beemer. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 24, 2009 13:40:30 GMT -5
Jeff.....maybe Bill will loan you his Beemer. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Sure, why not? ![](http://www.binglee.com.au/WMS/Upload/Images/Products//SUNB/PB7950.JPG)
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Apr 24, 2009 13:42:26 GMT -5
my take - Omaha is right. The reporter SHOULD have put it in the lede. The fact that a car company, any car company, lost money in the first quarter of this year is hardly what anyone would call news. The reporter and the editor screwed up. The news is this...
"Ford's pre-tax loss was 75 cents a share, which was much better than the $1.23 a share that analysts had been forecasting. In the wake of the earnings report, Ford shares were up 63 cents, or more than 13 per cent, at $5.12 US in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange."
The fact that the market responded positively makes no sense if the news is BAD. The stock went up 13% because the news was GOOD. But all the information that lets you know the news was good was buried six grafs down. Instead, the lede was 'Ford Motor Co., the only one of the domestic automakers not to take bailout money, reported a first-quarter loss of almost $1.43 billion US." This sounds terrible. They didn't take any money and look what happened to them. They LOST money!!! Oh my friggin God! the market is gonna be pissed about that and kill their stock ... what? it did what? why?
Headline could have been "Ford's loses less than expected" or "Ford beats analysts expectations". Just as true as what the headline said, but it puts the fact into perspective of why it is newsworthy.
|
|