There are news sources I trust to do a good job and news sources that I don’t. Usually I’d put the BBC in the first camp. However today’s piece Starbucks sued for pulling offer got my hackles up. I don’t know anything about that case, it sounds silly but then that may be the media or corporate PR machine in action. What I object to is the sloppy perpetuation of what is either a myth or a far more contentious case than the BBC suggest about the McDonalds’ Coffee Case. It isn’t hard to find out a bit about that case. A quick Google will throw up plenty of research material. Here is the first hit I got refuting and here is one refuting the it was all McDonald’s spin take.
The BBC journalists are apparently getting training in understanding the law. Maybe they should get one on how to avoid the lazy journalism of padding pieces with what may be myths, spin or lies and at the very least are not as clean cut as their representation too?
For all the spin, counter spin and counter, counter spin of the McDonalds Coffee Case the one thing neither side ever seem to ask is how the injury affected a 79 year old woman and her family. Maybe that’s what people should be focusing on rather than perpetuating the myth and the argument?