https://www.hln.be/binnenland/elektrische-auto-in-panne-dubbele-pech-slepen-kan-niet-dus-moet-er-kraan-ingezet-worden~a339398d/

If you are a person that dislikes, likes or couldn’t ne bothered by EV’s, doesn’t make a difference, but the way this “journalist” is pushing his own opinion to others is just garbage. Journalism shouldn’t be about opinions, it should be about presenting news and giving information. But yeah, long live clickbait.

“Believers”, a rare (probably made up) case of someone that had to go 39 times to the garage in 4 years,… If you write like that, I hope you get payed by the Saudis.

For the reference I repeat, I am not complaining about what is written, but about how it is written, with little to no references.

33 comments

  4. I don’t know why this is a shock to you. It has been this way for centuries.

    Most media sources will have a bias in a certain direction and then the journalist under them will have their own level of bias.

    It’s almost human nature and we only process it in a different way and perceive it negatively when it doesn’t align with our views and opinions.

    Edit: spelling

  6. idk what you expect from classic media. It’s entertainment not news. Just like social media you are getting distracted from the things that matter until they make it your matter. people already don’t manage to read. Better to write sensaionalist pieces that are not fact checked whatsoever. You’d be suprised how often even news papers like de Standaard blatantly write false information. Get yourself independant news reporters as source of news and be eye opened to what really goes on in the world.
    Edit: Just this week financial times manages to crash western alliance bankcorporation by 50% after releasing a blatantly false article saying they’re seeking a sale. Every billionaire owns media platforms and this is why. Fear mongering assholes.

  7. There are objective reporters such as Reuters and AP for international news, or Belga for Belgian news. They are to the point, sec, and just state facts. But they’re a bit boring and can leave you with some additional questions such as “Why is this important?”, “How did it come to this?” or “What now?”

    Commercial news tries to answer those questions by adding context, expert opinions, a fun fact, … but the criteria for what “relevant” context or what “expert” opinion to publish are always a bit subjective, and it’s where different media can distinguish themselves from each other.

    For your final remark: pretty much all Belgian articles have Belga as main reference. Then they just add opinions or context in the form of previous articles (in turn based on a Belga reference or opinions)

  8. In part this is because they are literally paid by people who want to push certain agendas.

    It’s also because such articles get clicks from people who like to have their opinions affirmed, and also from outraged people like you who share such journalistic sewage on Reddit. In an ideal world noone would click on these articles and they would disappear on their own.

  9. You make the assumptions this content is written by journalists. It’s not.
    Interns, freelancers and chatGPT. Journalism can’t be found on that website.

  10. Their literal job is to drive engagement and clicks. Which they appear to have done successfully in this case because everyone is following your link to see how outrageous the article is.

  14. Using hln as an example of bad journalism, is pretty weird. No one even expects anything on that site anyway..

    ​

    > Journalism shouldn’t be about opinions, it should be about presenting news and giving information.

    That’s just plain wrong. The very nature of journalism includes an opinion. The job of a journalist is to interpret the information they find, and explain it to their public. That will always include their opinion because it’s impossible to exclude it. Let’s say they report on a Trump speech. Should a journalist stop at summarizing the content of the speech? Or should he add fact checking? Should he add that Trump was yelling a lot and seemed very agitated and even confused? If the journalist adds that to his article, Trump supporters will say that the journalist is biased against Trump. If the article just lists the main talking points, Trump opponents will say that the journalist is not doing his job by not adding the rest of the information.

    Even by choosing *what* to write about, is a biased choice.

  16. A good recent example I think was the news of Sergio Herman losing his 2 Michelin stars at Pure C. Every news outlet took a dig at Herman, before he himself had to explain it had nothing to do with the quality of the restaurant but the new procedure at Michelin when a head chef leaves a restaurant.

    In the exact same article at De Morgen where the explanation was given, the journalist wrote in the intro “obviously the Michelin inspectors were not impressed this year because they stripped Pure C of his two stars”

    you may or may not like Sergio Herman, that’s not the point. But stay to facts instead of stirring some made up shit to get the comments section going.

  17. I haven’t read the article because of the paywall, but I also assumed the intro “…en elke maand wordt het clubje ‘believers’ groter….” to be leaning to the journalists opinion.

    Also here, I am not offended by what he writes, but if it is his own opinion that he puts in the article, it should be indicated (I believe De Standaard does this)

  19. In het verleden hadden we’ blik’, het was pure roddelpers.

    Iedereen wist dat het roddelpers was, daarom dat het ook niet serieus genomen werd. Hln is misschien zo erg niet, maar het zit wel in de grijze zone.

    De dag van vandaag is roddelpers ook nefaster voor de maatschappij dan vroeger, doordat het zich sneller kan verspreiden beïnvloed het de publieke opinie, terwijl dit vroeger niet het geval was.

  21. I know it’s a totally sick and wild idea, but in a society where we allow each other to share opinions, this also implies that: i) you can countershare yours, or ii) you can just not read it.

  26. Also it’s plain wrong. My BMW iX3 had a (all things considered) light accident (with no other parties involved) and had to get towed as well. A regular tow truck was able to pull my car on it’s bed just fine.

    In the end it was considered an economical total loss.

    Funny detail. Through the 360 cameras I could follow the buyer repairing it to brand new probably fixing it for less than what the official “expert” said it would cost.

  27. That is why I only read De Tijd. Facts, the real world, economy, the big things. No opinions, accidents, gossip or coloured “serious” articles. The rest of them: they do it all. From the suggestive titles in hln or nieuwsblad unto the “we tell you what is good and what is not”-nagging of quality paper De Standaard (their catholic heritage?): all the same. I form My own opinion about everything, i just want facts. Thanks;)

  31. Everyone saying “it’s HLN, duuuh” hasn’t opened a different newspaper in the last 10 years and is lying to themselves. There’s only one neutral, classic, “quality” newspaper left where journalists don’t subliminally shove their opinions down your throat and it’s De Tijd.

    Both De Morgen and De Standaard have turned into complete and utter garbage rags and anyone saying it’s to be expected that journalists have an open ideological bias: that’s not what they taught me in journo school lol.

  32. hln is a great mirror of some part of society as the articles are heavily monitored on what works and what doesnt (what generates clicks views and what keeps people coming back etc …), so the people get fed what they pick themselves

    if you view it like that its great

  33. I know somebody who’s apartment set on fire and HLN wrote an article and the title was something along the lines of “Zware brand in apartement, wellicht ging het om een vergeten kookpot die op het vuur bleef staan”. The fire was from an electrical issue like why the hell did the journalist just make up a story?

Leave a Reply