Categories: Newspaper Watch

Did You Know France Has A “League Against Road Safety”?

This doesn’t sound quite like a French thing to be honest, having a “League Against Road Safety”. They tend not to do jokes in that manner. Sounds much more like an English thing really. Make the critique of excessive safety moves by making fun of them, pretending even to be against the very concept itself.

Well, maybe. But France does seem to have such a league, at least the Telegraph thinks so:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]But Chantal Perrichon, president of the League Against Road Safety, warned that given the unpopularity of the speed cuts, “we are going to pay in blood for the pseudo-responsibility of politicians who prefer their mandate to the safety of citizens”.[/perfectpullquote]

Somehow it doesn’t quite chime. The answer being that France doesn’t have and it is an English invention.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Ligue contre la violence routière[/perfectpullquote]

Ah:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Chantal Perrichon est une combattante. Cela fait plus de 15 ans qu’à la présidence de la Ligue contre la violence routière,[/perfectpullquote]

Yes, right organisation, right person.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]the president of the league against road violence, Chantal Perrichon.[/perfectpullquote]

Aha!

So, it’s the Telegraph’s translation there then. Somehow they’ve managed to move the league against road violence over to being the league against road safety. Which is pretty good, don’t you think?

And now think on. The journalist who wrote this read over it at least once just to check. And then multiple layers of editors did. They must have done, they’re the media, right? And no one noted this rather jarring though that France has this league against road safety?

Now extrapolate this command of fact to their reporting on anything of importance, the EU, climate change, inequality…..

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Tim Worstall

View Comments

  • Quite when the Telegraph turned from being a newspaper to a magazine is lost in recent history. Perhaps it is the fault of the internet, but it now seems to be either Op-Ed or non-sense about allegedly "lifestyle" issues. One supposes they are no worst than the rest.

  • I'm sure most readers are familiar with this, but I still like it:

    Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward - reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story - and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

    But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

    Michael Crichton’s 2002 essay “Why Speculate?”

Share
Published by
Tim Worstall

Recent Posts

The BBC and terrorism

The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…

3 years ago

We Should Pay Medical Personnel For Each Procedure They Perform

It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…

3 years ago

The Scrubbers Are Failing

In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…

3 years ago

Wondering whether an idea is actually correct or not

There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…

4 years ago

Is Cryptocurrency Our Revolution, Or Theirs?

When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…

4 years ago

Playing The Mischief With Us

As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…

4 years ago