Washington Post history: how to make an otherwise interesting article sound ridiculous.

[DFW]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the The DU Lounge forum).

They had an article, inspired by some new sequel to "Gladiator," which I did not know about. They listed some real life ancient gladiators, who, in the author's opinion, deserved their own films. One was Spartucus, about whom there has indeed been a film made. Commodus, who was also emperor (and not a good one), and featured in "Gladiator," was also mentioned.

But the article started out with "The first known gladiator competition in ancient Rome occurred in 264 BCE at the funeral of Brutus (the Roman politician famous for killing Julius Caesar)."

Oh, did it really? This is like Thomas Jefferson hosting his own chat room on the internet (presumably asking for comments on whether or not he should have pushed that risky Louisiana Purchase deal). Brutus participated in the assassination of G.J. Caesar on March 15, 44 BC. His funeral was presumably two years later, when he died after trying to seize power against Caesar's son Octavian. Ergo, his funeral couldn't have been until 42 BC, or 222 years after the article's reported date of 264 BC for the first gladiator competition. The article specifies that they mean THAT Brutus, since he was part of the Caesar assassination in 44 BC.

[Docreed2003]

1. We are living in a post-research/post-ffacts world apparently

It's seems that the Washington Post is following the social media trend of posting "entertaining stories" without factual basis. This trend is rampant on Instagram and TikTok where influencers post sensational videos with sometimes outlandish information for clicks which largely have zero basis in facts.

[DFW]

2. It's depressing to ponder

Maybe everything else in the article was accurate, but if it starts out with something that is glaring nonsense, it just renders all the research (assuming there was some, which may be foolish on my part) suspect, and therefore useless as history. Unless you are a Republican, of course, in which case Jefferson should have listened to all those comments on the internet about the Louisiana Purchase before sending Lewis and Clark out there to check out Disneyland.

[Docreed2003]

3. Sadly, I think we are going to see more of this type of lazy journalism

It seems to be creeping into all areas of social media and now mainstream journalists are latching onto it as well. It's almost as if getting clicks and likes is more important than accuracy. Strike that, getting likes and clicks is clearly more important than accuracy

[DFW]

4. If cancer hadn't killed my dad, this would have.

He was a Washington print journalist from 1950-2000. He prided himself on accuracy and fairness. He was cited in the Congressional Record by members of both parties for just those qualities. One reason I never went into his fascinating field was because I thought his shoes were too big for the likes of me to fill. He was president of the Gridiron Club (Clinton years) and the recipient of all kinds of awards. On his deathbed in the summer of 2000, he was already deploring the slime his profession was descending into. It's a good thing he never saw what it has become 24 years later.

[nuxvomica]

5. My Latin teacher warned us that Roman names were confusing

Because among the aristocracy, many had the same first name so you have to refer to their full name to keep them straight. Good catch on your part but seriously the reporter should have checked his facts in Wikipedia instead of using some AI app.

[Omaha Steve]

6. AFTER a review by forum hosts LOCKING

Statement of Purpose
Our social forum. Relax with your friends and talk about off-topic stuff. The Lounge is supposed to be a friendly, welcoming place for everyone. No cliquish behavior. No drama. No political arguments. No whining about DU.