Lately I've encountered a number of news articles that have some fairly glaring mistakes in the content, and it's given me a bit of pause in regards to accepting their veracity.
For example, today on Yahoo.com there was an article published regarding a spike in Colorado drivers refusing to consent to toxicology tests when pulled over for suspicion of DUI, and it contained the following (I added the quotation marks and the italics, 'natch):
"It's all because the Colorado Expressed Consent Law said Colorado Department of Transportation Traffic Safety Manager Sam Cole.
"Unfortunately, a lot of people do not know that if they are arrested for DUI, they have to take a toxicology test, that's either a blood test or a urine test," Cole said."
Notice the text cited? Take a look again at the one in the bold font. There's a fairly glaring error in that thar' statement.
The State of Colorado statute regarding DUI gives a suspect the right to choose between a blood test or a breath test, as outlined in section 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(I), C.R.S.
Sure, it's kinda funny to imagine police officers pulling over a suspected drunk driver (especially if it's a woman) and requesting a piss test, but seriously, how did an editor not see this error in the article?
I mean, I know most media outlets no longer have science editors, but no legal beagles either?
Was the article actually researched and written by a human? Or maybe the mistake was made by the CDOT traffic safety manager Sam Cole? (that's even scarier though - he should know the law regarding traffic safety inside and out).
ChatGPT anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment