Six Flags marketing: We're still open

Some headline are misleading on purpose. Some TV news teasers exaggerate dangers to you or "your family", or "your children", or "your pet" on purpose. It's done to try to get your interest, encouraging you to read on or tune in. I'll admit that that is pretty much common sense, but it seems that we need to be reminded of it from time to time.

I know of a certain circumstances that comes to mind, but I'm not at liberty to mention the details. It's one reason why I stick to writing feature stories instead of the juicy stuff.

Some headline are misleading on purpose. Some TV news teasers exaggerate dangers to you or "your family", or "your children", or "your pet" on purpose. It's done to try to get your interest, encouraging you to read on or tune in. I'll admit that that is pretty much common sense, but it seems that we need to be reminded of it from time to time.

I know of a certain circumstances that comes to mind, but I'm not at liberty to mention the details. It's one reason why I stick to writing feature stories instead of the juicy stuff.

But "some" is the key word. Some people are morons too, but it doesn't mean everyone is. There's good and bad in everything, which is why I'm annoyed at the general canvasing of the nebulous "media" which includes everything from a 12-year-old podcasting in his mom's basement to the New York Times. If you're unwilling to differentiate the difference, than you have no place to make generalizations about how awful it all is.

Whether a person perceives "the media" as good, bad, left, right, young or old, I think there have been enough instances where they are simply "wrong" to question it's validity for anything. When professionally printed or spoken information as simple as a coaster's height, number of riders or even its NAME (all of which we have seen and discussed here on the Buzz) are being reported incorrectly, it makes me wonder if they double check anything before reporting it as fact.

Are there good reporters who do their due diligence? Of course there are. But the ones who do not are out there in force, and I'm not talking about the random preteen bloggers. I agree that "the media" cannot be automatically blamed as a scapegoat, but I also believe they shouldn't be automatically trusted either.

But what is "the media" in the first place? You're lumping a gigantic and mostly unrelated set of organizations and people into one generalization. Can anyone make a valid statement about anything that diverse?

I pay attention to the "press," however outdated that term may be, and even then, only the press that has a reputation for adhering to general journalistic principles.