Media houses have been known to spend huge amounts in pursuit of stories they deem important, even if it means crossing international borders.
So, it's quite strange that a story emanating from arguably a walking distance from the head office of a newspaper, unashamedly alludes to the paper not having first hand information about what is being reported.
The headline of the article above, instantly grabs attention like a good heading should, and entices the reader to explore the details of this, 'body blow to women' which resulted in the flop of the gender Bill.
But then follows a strap that destroys this wonderful buildup, by confidently stating:
"...claims are rife that most women were absent."Claims. Claims. Claims!!!
- How is it that the reporter could not establish exactly how many female legislators were absent?
- Is this particular detail not a part of public records?
- By using 'claim' in the article, is it not tantamount to admitting the information being shared could be inaccurate?
- Can I claim this is lazy journalism?
Nay. I proclaim this to be editorial irresponsibility!