Forum Topic

Pathetic Journalism

Again and again we see cases of journalistic catastrophising!  Today we see a typical example.  A Guardian HEADLINE of  ‘Households face SHOCK increase in Energy Bills from January”. After reading the lengthy article it appears that households, with average usage (£1728 per annum)  will see bills increase by 28pence a month or just over £3 per annum!  Really!!  What a shock!  Many people will now lose sleep worrying. Their Christmas celebrations will be spoilt by the Guardian advising that bills will increase. And in the real world people are losing their homes in Ukraine.

Steve Taylor ● 1d32 Comments

Danny Cohen, former Director of BBC Television, sums it up well -“That the BBC has helped to push Hamas lies around the world and fuelled anti-Semitism at home cannot now be in doubt.”Much like someone on here with his hell-bent hatred of the only Jewish state on earth.

Davy Jones ● 2h

The BBC seems to lurch from one crisis,issue,scandal or cause for concern to another on a fairly regular basis.I can't help thinking it needs a flush out at the top and some independent scrutiny put in place.Those who are responsible for causing the problems should be held to account and sacked,not allowed to resign.They need to show they are serious about change.

Keith Iddon ● 9h

“ I stress this is just a guess on my part, but I'm not convinced that the Guardian used the word shock in their original article. They might have done, and then changed it of course, but it seems more likely (to me) that the change was made by AOL.”Yes, I think you are right, Andrew. I have another screenshot showing the same ‘shock’ headline attributed to Yahoo. The first one I looked at (and emailed to you) shows the Guardian complete with logo. This is the one I opened the link and read the article  in full before I started this thread. Hence I attributed  the article to the Guardian. I’m sure anybody would have done the same although, as said, the point of my thread wasn’t to specifically call out the Guardian, it was about pathetic journalism and catastrophising in general and I’m glad I opened this debate for general opinion.  In this case I agree that the culprit was somebody from AOL who catastrophised the Guardian article even more!!I think another contributor already mentioned it as being ‘click bait’ which obviously we all now need to be more aware of because we cannot trust story hungry journalists or media staff from any source. They are now worse than Lawyers, Estate Agents and Car Sales people in the grand scheme of trust and reliability.

Steve Taylor ● 9h

Thanks Steve.The screengrab you sent me shows three articles (in an AOL news feed, viewed on a mobile phone app) that you can click on, the first an advertisement for supplements, the second a Guardian article titled "Households face shock increase in energy bills from January" with a cropped version of a photo that was in the online guardian article. The third article was a press association article about Ben Stokes and the cricket.What AOL appear to do is take the source article and re-format it e.g.Here is an independent article I found on AOL News today in its original online versionhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/israeli-benjamin-netanyahu-palestinian-west-bank-jerusalem-b2869931.htmland here is the AOL 'version'https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/netanyahu-convenes-cabinet-settler-violence-110529377.htmlThe above two articles look similarish (but clearly different) when viewed on a PC. It doesn't automatically follow that something viewed on a mobile would look exactly the same as on a PC - content will often be displayed differently due to the differences in size, screen layout etc between PCs and mobiles.Why there is a difference in title between what the original guardian article was headlined i.e. "Households in Great Britain face a surprise rise in energy bills from January" isn't something I would know.I could hazard a guess that if you are looking at AOL on a mobile phone, then AOL might change the leaders to make something shorter and snappier e.g. removing the words Great Britain, and in this case the word surprise seems to have been changed to shock, significantly changing the headline.I stress this is just a guess on my part, but I'm not convinced that the Guardian used the word shock in their original article. They might have done, and then changed it of course, but it seems more likely (to me) that the change was made by AOL.

Andrew Jones ● 10h

Thank you Andrew. I have emailed the Guardian Headline to you. That is the link I clicked on to read the full story of the so called ‘shock’ increase in energy prices.

Steve Taylor ● 12h

The showing of 'Gaza: How to survive a war zone' was a breach of editorial standards, and was duly criticised by Ofcom. It wasn't a conscious breach of impartiality. The BBC genuinely didn't know the teenager was the son of the Hamas Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The production company failed to reveal this salient fact. But the BBC should have been more questioning.

Robert Fish ● 13h

Fair point,but neither should it screen a documentary fronted by the son of a Hamas official.The disciplining of the newsreader for substituting the phrase 'pregnant women' for the scripted 'pregnant people'showed to me how daft they are in danger of becoming.

Keith Iddon ● 17h

Anti-Israel News? Is the BBC supposed to remain silent on the daily horrors of the last 25 months in Gaza, just so as not to give its enemies an excuse for calling into question its impartiality?

Robert Fish ● 22h

Another resignation. Focus here is on Trump, but their unforgiving anti-Feminist (actual women vs trans 'women') and anti Israel news - Hamas isn't even a terrorist organization (much trumpeted by fishy sorts on W4) is all coming home to roost

Davy Jones ● 1d

That's correct, a FALL was expected.

Nicholas Beard ● 1d

Steve try andrew27649234jones@gmail.com

Andrew Jones ● 1d

Steve, try

Andrew Jones ● 1d

“in summary, the Guardian never had a HEADLINE of  ‘Households face SHOCK increase in Energy Bills from January”.”Andrew - yes it does have the headline. Give me your email address or WhatsApp number and I’ll send you a photo. I’m not sure how to post photos on here.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

Richard,don't be childish.LOL

Keith Iddon ● 1d

He is known as Silly Steve for a reason.

Richard Greenhough ● 1d

So, in summary, the Guardian never had a HEADLINE of  ‘Households face SHOCK increase in Energy Bills from January”.Myth debunked. End of.

Andrew Jones ● 1d

The headline with the word 'shock' does appear in the Yahoo news update to Facebook which will probably have been the same for AOL as they took it over some time ago. However, if you actually click on the story the word shock doesn't appear in the article from the Guardian so this is not an example of poor journalism but of clickbait practices by an internet company. Steve Taylor clearly didn't bother to follow the link.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1d

I presume this is the AOL news feed:https://www.aol.co.uk/news/uk/There is no such Guardian headline on here and Felicity has previously provided a link to the actual story which isn't what you claimed. The Guardian's news coverage can be irritating but one think they are scrupulous about is transparency over changes made to stories and this one has not been amended after publication.

Francis Rowe ● 1d

“I checked the latest stories they are running and the Guardian article doesn't appear”Oh dear, oh dear, Felicity, you are embarrassing yourself. You obvious don’t know how to check the AOL newsfeed.  The Headline is  under the Guardian name and Logo is 100% clear. If you can’t find it, I can’t help you but you could check with AOL.  It says SHOCK increase!  If you don’t want to believe it, it’s your prerogative but it’s still fact and it has opened the debate about journalistic behaviour and I find some of the comments here quite interesting and they provide food for thought. The comments from Greenhough and Iddon are, as usual, childish nonsense.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

My thoughts exactly Richard.

Keith Iddon ● 1d

I didn't think AOL still existed but apparently they do. They collate the news feeds of various news organisations. I checked the latest stories they are running and the Guardian article doesn't appear although there is a Press Association article talking about a 'slight' increase. If AOL did feature the story they would have picked it up from the Guardian RSS feed and that shows that the headline used the word surprise not shock.Maybe you misread it, maybe you picked it up from a social media post that was spreading misinformation. The lesson here is that if you are going to criticise somebody's work in such strong terms, check your facts first.

Felicity Caborn ● 1d

"I was alluding to ALL journalists and their insatiable lust for catastrophisation."Sounds like you would enjoy being a journalist.

Richard Greenhough ● 1d

Yes, it’s a simple case of that the Guardian headline of Shock increase popped up in my AOL newsfeed and I thought something serious had happened with energy prices  so I opened the link and read it in full only to find that my energy will probably increase by 28pence a month. I don’t buy the Guardian on a daily basis - only the Saturday Guardian hard copy which can take a few days to get through.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

I reckon that some people on this forum (myself included) would have assumed you were highlighting the Guardian in the original post, so thanks for the clarification that you weren't, Steve.

Andrew Jones ● 1d

Could you post a link to the online edition with the headline SHOCK please Steve?

Andrew Jones ● 1d

Pretty much agree with all you say.These days though, you don't need a TV license to listen to BBC Radio, or access much of BBC online content.You do need a license for iPlayer usage.

Andrew Jones ● 1d

“ I should have added that you can find plenty of cases of journalistic catastrophising across all the newspaper media,”That was my whole point. I wasn’t particularly highlighting the Guardian, I was alluding to ALL journalists and their insatiable lust for catastrophisation. They will take a snippet of useless information and try to make a story out of it, in many cases causing distress to readers or listeners. Ch4 News makes a meal of utter nonsense.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

“ The Guardian article (which you clearly haven't actually read), says it was a 'surprise' not a 'shock' ”You’re 100% wrong, Felicity.  I have indeed read the full article and the online edition, which I read, clearly headlines SHOCK not surprise so get your facts straight before you make a fool of yourself again.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

The difference between the BBC and the print media is obviously the fact that the Corporation is easily accessed by anyone with a television or radio. One has to actively seek out a newspaper and usually pay for it, which is why circulation for most nationals has them on the point of extinction.If one chooses to read the Guardian or the Mail then one knows it comes with a hefty dose of bias. The BBC on the other hand is proud to trumpet its impartiality and as its publicly funded (without the option not to pay the licence fee and still access it legally) people have a right to disagree with how news is presented.As for shoddy journalism, that’s nothing new. The internet has all but destroyed proper reporting, with much of what constitutes ‘news’ these days actually being conjecture or opinion.

Simon Hayes ● 1d

I should have added that you can find plenty of cases of journalistic catastrophising across all the newspaper media, just pick the paper of your choice and you'll find something to agree with, or vehemently disagree with, depending on what mood you're in.e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9d9ex11gjoIf you are worried about BBC bias then you could try putting in "front pages today uk" into google, and you'll come up with a very similar ( but devoid of BBC bias) selection.

Andrew Jones ● 1d

The reason it was a 'surprise' was that up to a couple of days ago, the energy cap was expected to fall slightly ( according to https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/nov/18/energy-price-cap-great-britain-fall-january-higher-bills )

Andrew Jones ● 1d

When you see someone rage posting about things like this on social media, it is always best to check whether they are telling the truth.The Guardian article (which you clearly haven't actually read), says it was a 'surprise' not a 'shock' that the energy cap is to rise as analysts had been predicting a fall.https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/nov/21/energy-price-cap-great-britain-rise-january-fuel

Felicity Caborn ● 1d