Poke! Today Tonight's sensationalism?; Soft drinks and violence (25th October 2011)

Today Tonight reporting false facts about refugee camps [ABC | MediaWatch]

Smug face much?

ABC's MediaWatch has debunked one of the recent Today Tonight episodes shown on Channel 7, where in the show, according to their investigation, they discovered the asylum seekers are having a good life in refugee camp better than those living outside. They claimed they are living in luxury with $400 a week. However, MediaWatch has get into the details and found out actually it's $400 a fortnight. Alongside this, there are multiple claims from Today Tonight and however the information is either misleading or sensationalist in sense. As the recent asylum seeker issue surrounding the parliament and being a controversial topic after the rejection of the Malaysian solution, Today Tonight has taken this golden chance to create biased report about asylum seekers.

Personally I am not in the know on who's right or wrong, but apparently with the evidence given by MediaWatch, Channel 7 has yet again create another sensational nonsense just to get their audience rates higher. Including this one, I'm not a fan of shows like Channel Ten's 7PM Project and Nine's Current Affair as well (poor George Negus' show got axed), where their means of reporting an event is just extraordinary, it's like receiving chain emails in the theme of CAFFs from your parents' friends' friends' friends, but in a form of TV programme. In such a popular programme like Today Tonight, misleading a crowd of people is deemed to be unethical in my opinion.

Study: Soft drinks link to violence [ABC]

Good grief. I'm not sure what to say in this situation. I rarely drink soft drinks, and I don't have any soft drinks in my fridge because I just like milk, tea and water. They serve me well and I don't really think I'd need to drink anything bubbly just to hydrate my body while water can just do as well as Pepsi and Coke.

The study, which analysed the soft drink consumption of 1,878 Boston public school students, showed teens who drank more than five cans of non-diet soft drink a week were 9 to 15 per cent more likely to act aggressively than those who consumed less. The authors surveyed the teens, who came from largely African American and Hispanic backgrounds, asking them how much fizzy soft drink they consumed as well as whether they carried a weapon or showed violence towards those around them.

But in the end of the article, there's something that can let me loose a little. It's more like a "told you" moment for me.

Professor Mike Daube, director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, said at this stage the only definite conclusion to be drawn from the study was the link between poor diet and economic disadvantage. "A lot of young people do drink soft drinks, and young people that are disadvantaged and more likely to be involved in violence, probably also have a poorer diet," he said.

Well, I believe being violent has nothing to do with soft drinks. Drinking soft drinks or not is just a matter of choice, it has nothing to do with aggression and violent behaviour. Unless... they've put in chemicals or something?

D.