Hurray, another spring day! Leaving work is mild & the perfect shade of deep blue this time of year, with scudding clouds and flocks of birds and everything.

It’s said that a good test of an information source is how accurate it is on things you know about. So here’s an article about the publicity stunt shock events in Captain America In this morning’s METRO. If you’re into comics, you’ll already know about it, and vice versa, so won’t spoil it, even though it was only announced yesterday.

Cap, iconic superhero second only to Superman, is assassinated. But that’s not what concerns me.


Only a few paragraphs long (yet somehow taking up nearly an entire print page), the article has at least a dozen errors. And we’re not just talking obscure, spoddy, errors, but stuff as blatant as a caption ‘at the moment he was shot’… to a picture of him fighting in World War II, sixty years ago.

Or how about this? ‘Yet he was killed by an unknown sniper as he left a courtroom.’ In the comic, he’s wounded as he approaches a courthouse. The sniper, a well-known supervillain, is caught a few pages later. And Cap would have been fine, if someone else hadn’t shot him a lot more with a handgun a bit later.

I know it is ‘just about a comic’, but it’s revealing: imagine this was an article about, say, terrorism arrests. Or climate change. Or…

Sometimes I feel I’m overly cynical towards my attitude to ‘the media’. And then something like this comes along.

  1. Yes, it is amazing how the basic errors in stories about matters one is familiar with erode one’s confidence in all other stories.

    Whilst it is good that major popular culture events are at least covered, it is disheartening to see it done under the category of “FAME”. Right. So this is purely news because people might have heard of Captain America?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Switch to our mobile site