In an article with a very long title news.com.au reports that "Second woman claims affair as police to charge Tiger Woods over car crash."
Which is all well and good except that the story is told about 3 times.
Early in the article we learn that:
"He could be fined $US164 ($179) and lose four points off his licence."
A few paragraphs on the article reveals that:
"He could be fined $US164 ($179) and lose four points off his licence."
Similarly an early paragraph which says:
"The investigation has determined that Mr Woods is at fault in the crash. This afternoon the FHP is in the process of issuing a uniform citation of careless driving to Mr Woods," Williams said.
is repeated only slightly differently further on as:
"The investigation has determined that Mr Woods is at fault in the crash. This afternoon the FHP is in the process of issuing a uniform citation of careless driving to Mr Woods," Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) area commander Major Cindy Williams said.
And if you weren't confused enough by all that, a triple whammy hits you with:
Another spokeswoman, Kim Montes said was [sic] no other charges would be laid.
and later:
Another FHP spokeswoman, Kim Montes, said no other charges would be laid against Woods or anyone else.
and later still:
Ms Montes said no further action would be taken against Woods over the accident.
There's more like that - as I said the same story told three times almost word for word - and no human or computer picked it up.
And I note that when I started this blog noone was talking loudly about the public paying for online news content. While there may be a case for that, I think they have to pull their socks up a bit first as this is hardly a ringing endorsement of good journalism or site management that would encourage any punter to part with their money.
You don't need to be Einstein, so this is merely
but it shouldn't happen anyway.
Original article, in triplicate, can be found here.
