The Chant of the Barbie Dolls

Take this very recent example, as a case in point, of how it would seem as if it's easy to dupe poor, unsuspecting, trusting, naive journalists and their editors:

I came across this on the Irish Independent's online site:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/frustrated-ryanair-passenger-eats-euro10000-winning-scratchcard-2084291.html

A quick google search revealed it has been picked up all over the place:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ryanair+passenger+eats+winning+scratch+card&meta=&aq=f&oq=

I viewed a few of the articles: they are pretty much verbatim copies of each other. The BBC did at least have the decency to edit out the line saying that the passenger "should have availed of our range of tasty snacks" instead of eating his lottery ticket.

I haven't found any articles that appear to wonder whether or not this MAY be a publicity stunt. I mean it MAY have happened - some guy on a flight MAY have actually eaten, or appeared to eat, a scratch card that he claimed was a winner in front of people, and the crew MAY have confirmed it was a winning ticket.......

One or two comments on articles have suggested it was a publicity stunt with a hired actor.

But come on? Really? Doesn't this SOUND like it MIGHT just be a publicity stunt? I mean donating 10k to charity is a fine thing, but in return for this kind of free advertising? Isn't it a little obvious? I mean even if it is absolutely and genuinely true, who cares?

On the other hand, on the plus side, I did find the article useful as a) I didn't know Ryanair fly to Krakow, and b) they have a range of tasty snacks available on board that cost less than EUR10,000? Wow, who knew?

A google search for "Richard Gray" seems to indicate he may write for the Telegraph, as, or all things, a science correspondent, would you believe:

http://www.journalisted.com/richard-gray

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/tag/richard-gray/

I realise this isn't an earth shattering political revelation or anything, but aren't journalists supposed to be world weary cynics who've seen it all? Isn't this a bit blatant? Don't editorial filters shut this kind of thing out?

I think what this shows is that "yes, it really is THIS easy to manipulate the media".

Whenever a story fits the "dominant media narrative" (in these cases, pleasingly: 'Chavez is a loony' or 'Ryanair passengers are loony chavs') it appears as if it's surprisingly easy to get it widely publicized, irrespective of whether it's true or not, or whether there's any real evidence produced for it.