Which is responsible, the media or the individual?

[Slow_Runner]

If the media tells you to do something which is hazardous to your health, should the media be held responsible?
Have people become too trusting of the media if they blindly follow what it says in the news paper without checking the facts for themselves?

The events that spurred this thread were as follows:
On August 22nd, a major Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, published a story about good spots for picking mushrooms near Helsinki. In the story there was a picture of a mushroom called destroying angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroying_angel) with the text "Sienet ovat parhaimmillaan nuorina" which translates to "mushrooms are best when they're young". As the most astute of you might've figured out from the name of the thing, it's not exactly wise to eat these things and they are in fact responsible for most of the deaths caused by mushroom poisonings.

Today, news are rolling in about unrelated cases of people around Helsinki coming in with mushroom poisoning due to, you guessed it, people eating destroying angel. Four cases so far, one with their liver shot to hell and waiting in line for a liver replacement. This could be all random chance of course, but when you look at the statistics, in the past 9 years, there have only been about ten cases of mushroom poisoning in that area. Now there are 4 in less than a week, all with this particular mushroom.

The newspaper has since wrote a correction, pointing out that the mushroom in the picture was in fact of a destroying angel and unlike what it said on the caption, isn't "best when it's young" but is in fact lethal regardless of its the age.

So what I'm curious about here is, whose fault is this? The newspaper's? The person who put the picture of a deadly mushroom in the article? The people who go out and eat these mushrooms based solely on a picture on a newspaper article?

Where do you draw the line? For example if there was an article saying that chewing glass is good for your teeth and people actually started chomping down on their broken windows, would it still be the writer's fault? The first rule of mushrooms is after all never to pick and eat a mushroom if you don't know exactly what it is.

[scoiatollo]

How fast did they write the correction? If they printed it on the next day, posted it on their website, maybe even had a small announcement on radio/tv news I don't think that they are responsible for this. Mistakes happen from time to time and tbh I wouldn't trust an article about mushrooms, cause the chance that they mixed something up is way too big since they are no experts, so before I actually eat those said mushrooms I'd either go to a specialist (possible here in Austria, not sure if that's the case in other parts of the world as well), consult a book, or do a small online research simply to be on the save side. It's common knowledge that some mushrooms can kill you and look pretty similar to mushrooms you can eat.

Same thing happened with a cake recipe (iirc it was Sweden, but I'm not sure right now), they published a recipe where they misprinted the ammount of nutmeg (which is poisonous in high dosages but hardly anyone knows that...) so instead of 2.1g they used 21 (!) nutmegs. Whoever put that ammount of nutmegs in a simple pie has to be a moron... That happened although they warned about that mistake on the same day the magazine was sold.

Bottom line of this is, if you are not sure about something, your brain should tell you not to do it unless you know it's harmless from a reliable source...

[No Surrender]

Bottom line of this is, if you are not sure about something, your brain should tell you not to do it unless you know it's harmless from a reliable source...
Woah, when did we stop expecting newspapers to be reliable sources? In the case of the mushrooms I believe the responsibility lies with the publisher of the newspaper - standards of journalism require for extensive fact-checking, especially with information which could be potentially be harmful. When you're publishing material that has such a potential for life threatening injury, it's your responsibility to ensure that people don't come to harm because of your mistake, I'm not sure how to put it into simpler terms. If you're uncertain as to the accuracy of the article, don't publish it. If you publish it and someone gets seriously hurt then you should man up, admit your mistake, apologize and if necessary compensate the victim.

I expect the media to be held to a very high standard, especially when public safety is at risk. I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise.

[scoiatollo]

To be honest, a loooong time ago (but that has probably something to do with the low standard here in Austria). If it's a daily newspaper chances are even higher that someone unintentionally screws up simply because they have little time to check and recheck. Not to mention that someone could simply misclick and put the picture that was right besides the harmless one in the paper.
There are so many ways that such a picture could slip into the newspaper... I'd allways double check, especially if the content is potentially dangerous!

[Jonny]

A lot of people trust what they're told in newspapers, on TV and even on the Internet. The prevailing attitude for many is "Well, if it wasn't true they wouldn't be allowed to say it, would they?"

I think in a strange way it's a good thing, it shows most people aren't deceptive by nature and tend to accept what they're told at face value. On the other hand it's why advertising, propaganda and ridiculous hype work so well, so maybe it's not.

[Flonky]

I think in this particular case it's both the medias fault and the fault of the readers of the magazine. Failure for the journalists to properly copy edit the magazine and/or perform the necessary research could lead to some form of negligence charges if someone was to die, I think.

The readers who fell ill are also at fault as they seem to all have a severe lack of common sense, mushroom picking is wildy known to be a dangerous thing to do unless you are a specialist or are being closely supervised by one - even the specialists get it wrong sometimes. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would at least do some of their own research to see if it is safe to eat, especially seeing as this particular mushroom has the word destroying in its name.

Where do you draw the line?Common sense is the answer, with it the readers will realise if doing as the article says is a good idea or not...but it is inevitable that many in society have such a lack of it, it is an almost incurable condition. Also, media needs to do proper research on subjects such as this, I doubt they even consulted a specialist when writing the article.

Did the magazine have a warning in the article about the dangers of picking and eating mushrooms?

[scoiatollo]

Why do you assume it was put there on "purpose"? As said a simple misclick could have caused that, or someone naming a file wrong, etc. Once an article is written you can't expect that journalists/lectors will actually know how the said mushroom will look like (not to mention that they could look the "same").

Humans make mistakes that's natural, and I really doubt that anyone here hasn't done a minor or major mistake in their jobs. So why is everyone assuming that journalists/layouters/trainees are some sort of devine being that will never make a mistake?

[Paladin]

Why do you assume it was put there on "purpose"? As said a simple misclick could have caused that, or someone naming a file wrong, etc. Once an article is written you can't expect that journalists/lectors will actually know how the said mushroom will look like (not to mention that they could look the "same").

Not a single person has suggested it was placed there deliberately. The question is whether a media outlet, particularly something like the newspaper, which in the US at least is generally considered more reliable than the TV news, for instance, should be held to a standard high enough that making such mistakes is unacceptable.

I would have to say yes.

Humans make mistakes that's natural, and I really doubt that anyone here hasn't done a minor or major mistake in their jobs. So why is everyone assuming that journalists/layouters/trainees are some sort of devine being that will never make a mistake?
So... Since all humans make mistakes, if a doctor leaves a scalpel in a patient after a surgery, that person should just shrug it off because, hey, people make mistakes, right?

Some professions are simply held to a higher standard, because the consequences of their screwups can be very bad.

Journalists should be one of those professions.

[drChengele]

Humans make mistakes that's natural, and I really doubt that anyone here hasn't done a minor or major mistake in their jobs. So why is everyone assuming that journalists/layouters/trainees are some sort of devine being that will never make a mistake?I don't think that's the issue here, because there are reasonable mistakes and life-threatening mistakes and line should be drawn between the two. If you cannot do your job without guaranteeing you won't endanger someone's life doing it, then don't do it, and if you do, expect to be culpable when you mess up.

I'm with No Surrender on this one. Some jobs can influence safety and lives of people, and they all take into account what is a reasonable margin of error for an average human being. Most of these jobs usually have stringently defined protocols to ensure no major hick-ups happen. I don't know what's law's stance on culpability of media, but being an information outlet should put a lot of responsibility on you. It would be silly if a journalist went to jail every time he misspelled the name of a middle eastern country's capital, but when it comes to dangerous misinformation like this - yeah, that's why editors are for.

The only issue left to debate here is whether or not this particular combination of photo and caption can be considered actual encouragement of dangerous behavior. They nowhere explicitly said that the pictured mushroom is one of those that should be eaten young. Of course, anyone reading the newspaper would conclude so, therefore...

Ugh. Not pretty. But I'll tell you one thing. Editors have lost jobs for much less than this.

[scoiatollo]

@Paladin: yet most argue like they did.

I agree that newspapers have an important role in our society (some would argue that we need them less than a few years ago, but that's another topic) but you as a normal person can't take everything for granted just because it's standing in the newspaper!

I am fully aware of the responsibillities newspapers have, but that shouldn't hinder yourself to think about what you are actually doing! I don't know about you but when I was a kid I got told multiple times that I should not eat any mushrooms that I'm not 100% sure are harmless, I'd never ever get the stupid idea to go into the woods with the newspaper, collect mushrooms that are shown there and eat them without checking that it's actually okay. If you'd actually click on the wiki link you'd see that these mushrooms look similar to the harmless puffballs (which I guess it was mistaken with since they can be cooked)...

Since journalists usually take their pictures from huge databases, who says that they didn't screw up? You simply can't blame a person that has little to no clue about a subject for missing that detail.

Anyway I'm really surprised how many here follow blindly the media, no matter how good they are, there's allways the possibillity that something was mixed up.

We have a verdictsaying (although it sounds wrong...^^) here in Austria: Trust is good, checking is better!

[drChengele]

I am fully aware of the responsibillities newspapers have, but that shouldn't hinder yourself to think about what you are actually doing!Now that's another issue altogether. Laws are, for better or worse, based on the fact that the average person doesn't necessarily possess any particular knowledge, and they don't place too much responsibility on an individual for obvious stupidities. For confirmation you need go no further than product warnings of the "please don't put your poodle in this microwave" variety. Cynics would say, modern culture treats everyone like an idiot with guaranteed right to idiocy. And I'm a cynic.

Now, times may have improved the situation somewhat - after all, these laws were made before "to google" was a verb - and there is more information at the average user's fingertips than ever before. But how does one guard against misinformation, exactly? To the best of my knowledge there is no law that controls the veracity of information on the internet. Even Wikipedia doesn't technically state facts - it only cites sources. Which may or may not be accurate in the first place.

Is it realistic to expect everyone to have highly developed critical thought? Anyone whose job involves working with a random selection of people from all layers of society knows the answer to that question.

Don't take this as my personal attack on newspapers or defending the right to remain uninformed. For all you know, privately my opinion may be that the sooner we stop protecting "stupid" people and put some more responsibility on the individual, the sooner the gene pool would be cleansed (and it would do wonders to the current overpopulation problem). But is that creed really applicable here?

[Rincewind]

Slow_Runner, I can't find that article in HS. Link plx?

[Langy]

mushroom picking is wildy known to be a dangerous thing to do unless you are a specialist or are being closely supervised by one - even the specialists get it wrong sometimes.

Why would they publish an article about good places to pick mushrooms if its only supposed to be done by specialists or while being supervised by them? If that's the case, then just publishing that article, regardless of if they had the correct mushroom image or not, was irresponsible of them. Then again, I know pretty much nothing about mushrooms or mushroom picking except that I will never knowingly eat a mushroom, 'cause those things look nasty.

[Rincewind]

I have to wonder at Flonkys comment as well - the idea that someone is so removed from nature that they'd think mushroom or berry-picking is something better left for "specialists" is pretty funny for us Finns.

[Flonky]

Why would they publish an article about good places to pick mushrooms if its only supposed to be done by specialists or while being supervised by them?Langy, stop twisting my words. I said it's dangerous unless you are a specialist or under the supervision of one. The point I was trying to make was that the readers were clearly acting like fools as they clearly didn't do a little bit of their own research to confirm what the magazine article said.

Rincewind, I go picking fruit etc on a regular basis, I'm not as you say "removed from nature" - I live in a forest. With concerns to mushroom picking though, it is a dangerous thing to do if your education on the subject amounts to reading a magazine article. I've always been taught to not pick mushrooms unless I become pretty in the know about it (with a specialist book etc on the subject).

[Octopus Rex]

when did we stop expecting newspapers to be reliable sources?I have to agree with scoi in that the answer to this is 'a long time ago'. However, I think it depends on what kind of periodical/media to some extent - I wouldn't wipe my arse with The Sun in the UK, let alone trust a single word in it. However, I might be inclined to give the words in National Geographic a lot more credence. I would also be much more inclined to believe an established botany/fungi-related periodical too. I would probably trust a recipe out of a paper, but I would definitely raise any eyebrow at any dodgy ingredients.

While in an ideal world I would like the media to have some accountability, I think that it has gone too far already, and the world is filled with stupid warnings over really obvious & trivial things (the notorious hot coffee incident etc). This is because people simply refuse to take responsibility for their own well being, there always has to be someone to blame (read: sue) and the litigation culture is frankly getting ridiculous.

[Slow_Runner]

Rincewind, I'm not sure if it was published online, AFAIK it was only in the printed copy for last Saturday. Here (http://crap.fi/archive/7136.png)'s where I spotted the thing. Here (http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/08/helsingin_sanomat_harmittelee_vaaraa_sienikuvaa_956433.html)'s an article on the mixup, it's still not confirmed if (any of) the four read the article or not. (Both are in Finnish).

You definitely don't need to be a specialist to go picking mushrooms. You'll need some knowledge about mushrooms or a good book and some common sense. If you're unsure what kind of mushroom it is that you're picking up, DON'T EAT IT. Anyone with a clue about picking mushrooms would know this.

I for one have a difficult time imagining how someone would go and take one of these mushrooms, without a clue of what it is and then cook it. I mean where would you get the recipe for cooking one? How would you know how it's supposed to be prepared? Some mushrooms are poisonous unless you boil them first while others are only suited for certain kinds of foods. You really have to be quite daft to go and pick this particular mushroom based solely on a picture you saw on the paper and then eat it.