MIB Posted November 14, 2014 Moderator Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I think a lot of what we see publicly is sanitized and toned down for public consumption and influenced by the prevailing attitude of their view of the beings should be. If I am incorrect Yes and no. Motive is important in guiding what filtering goes on. Some sites just publish whatever comes to them with no apparent investigation at all, others do varying amounts of investigation. Those sites which have the better reputations are the ones which do more investigation and more filtering. A lot of "woo" gets filtered out. I'm not aware of ANY violent content being filtered out if the report seems otherwise publishable. The reason for the difference is the perception that reports of "woo" affect their respectability (edit: by this I mean specifically the site's reputation and more generally bigfooting's reputation) but reports of violence do not, at least not to the same degree. MIB Edited November 14, 2014 by MIB
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Morning MIB, I agree. The editors editing information gathered by field reporters sanitize news to accommodate the wishes of others.
frap10 Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I had a brother in law who was a reporter - and yes you are right on the money.
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Yes that is certainly true Frap 10. A lot what we see or don’t about a news item is scrubbed before it hits goes to print or the key “send†is pushed.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 16, 2014 Author Posted November 16, 2014 Agreed on the subterfuge of that article on the woman found in Wyoming, seems they are really not sure what was responsible, feral dogs are definitely a problem though, I think a dog attack would be fairly obvious, seems more like she was beaten or had some internal injuries the dogs could not be responsible for.
Recommended Posts