How's this for stupidity...

[furrysocks2]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4256782/Ring-fire-solar-eclipse-appear-Sunday.html

The first sentence of this article begins:

Quote

Get your binoculars ready...

 

[johnfosteruk]

I saw that and have lodged a complaint with IPSOS here

slapdash reporting of what essentially should be a simple fact based piece, in this case spreading the word about what should be a wonderful opportunity to experience one of the wonders of the world annoys the hell out of me. This kind of article should be automatic brownie points for the paper, doing something good but they have to muck it up.

I know 'most' people know not to look at the sun without protection but I'm sure there are those who trust the press (haha) who might think 'oh, maybe it's a different kind of eclipse' 

Unlikely, but possible I'm sure.

Suggest you do the same, let 'em know they need to be responsible.

Done ranting now.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Its an article in the Dailyfail........

Email the editor and set them right.

[johnfosteruk]

Or, see my post

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

2 minutes ago, johnfosteruk said:

Or, see my post

 

Complaint lodged.

[Paul73]

Poor poor journalism.

I still can't understand why so many people read the mail. But a lot of people can't fathom my liking for Conrad and Coleridge...

Paul

[LukeSkywatcher]

7 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

Poor poor journalism.

I still can't understand why so many people read the mail. But a lot of people can't fathom my liking for Conrad and Coleridge...

Paul

There is a HUGE difference between liking something and potentially losing your eyesight.

Chalk and cheese.

Had to google  Conrad and Coleridge and i'm stil none the wiser.I'm sure its a hell of a lot safer than looking at the Sun through bins.

[furrysocks2]

37 minutes ago, johnfosteruk said:

I saw that and have lodged a complaint with IPSOS here

Couldn't have been easier, thanks.

Odd that there was no tick box for "stupidity", despite it recognising the publication about which I wished to complain.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I'll be watching the dailyfail online website over the weekend to see if the retract the article. I wont be holding my breath.

[furrysocks2]

Interesting to see if they make any changes...

 

24 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

There is a HUGE difference between liking something and potentially losing your eyesight.

Unless that something is the DM and by eyesight, you mean soul. The difference then is perhaps not that great.

 

Off to google "Conrad and Coleridge" and then turn in.

 

[LukeSkywatcher]

8 minutes ago, furrysocks2 said:

Interesting to see if they make any changes...

 

Unless that something is the DM and by eyesight, you mean soul. The difference then is perhaps not that great.

 

Off to google "Conrad and Coleridge" and then turn in.

 

Colour me confused.

[Paul73]

Don't worry about the Conrad and Coleridge chaps. I'm just not a fan of the mail.

As Paul correctly points out, personal choice of reading is irrelevant when compared to the loss of anyone's sight. 

I am a fan of responsible fact based journalism. The article reads as if it was produced by the office junior and chucked in to fill some space!

Paul

Ps. Joseph Conrad and Samuel Taylor Coleridge are crusty old dead writer/poets. Who mangle the English language in a, to me, particularly pleasing way. But not to everyone's taste.

[Stu]

Gents, I know this is all going swimmingly currently, but newspaper preference can be a surprisingly emotive topic, so let's focus on this particular (stupid!) story and getting it corrected rather than the paper it is in.

Thanks!

[furrysocks2]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

Gents, I know this is all going swimmingly currently, but newspaper preference can be a surprisingly emotive topic, so let's focus on this particular (stupid!) story and getting it corrected rather than the paper it is in.

Thanks!

Hesitated over the submit button for this reason, but clicked anyway. Sorry.

[laudropb]

Totally irresponsible article. I too have lodged a complaint.

[Stu]

35 minutes ago, furrysocks2 said:

Hesitated over the submit button for this reason, but clicked anyway. Sorry.

We are all good, don't worry  

[oobydooby]

Part way through the article was this

Quote

Observers in this path will see a darkened sun, sometimes described as a 'hole in the sky', and the glow of the coroner around the edge.

Now that would be funny were it not for the serious and possibly life threatening nature of the article.

[Stub Mandrel]

11 hours ago, furrysocks2 said:

Get your binoculars ready...

adding a complaint.

[furrysocks2]

1 minute ago, Stub Mandrel said:

... and your passport...

Aye, indeed. Eclipse or no, chance would be a fine thing.

[Mognet]

Quote

The hornèd Moon, with one bright star

Within the nether tip.

Coleridge definitely had a better grasp on the use of language, even if his astronomical knowledge was slightly off

I suspect the Mail article was written with the help of Google rather than actual knowledge. Fortunately they do have this later in the text

Quote

The best way to view it is through a pinhole camera or with special solar viewing glasses.

 

[RWB]

As pointed out by Mognet there is a brief passage about pinhole camera/special solar viewing glasses BUT not really well placed in the article

NOR (in my humble opinion) well enough (read forcefully ) displayed

That's my peneth so clear skies for one and all     

                                                                       Robin

[Les Ewan]

Terrible robotic commentary.

[Peter Drew]

Coroner ???  

[Dave Lloyd]

Oh dear, more sloppy journalism. Like the Daily Express report on cataclysmic events caused by planetary alignment. Difference is this one may cause blindness.