Should newspaper predict the near future of current events?

[garethp]

I live in the UK in which the girlfriend of a childrens TV presenter (Mark Speight) died of a cocaine overdose approximately a month ago. A few days ago it was reported that the TV presenter had gone missing. I told a colleague at work about the work about the news and the first thing that popped into my head is that he would be found dead. Today they found his dead body.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | TV host Mark Speight 'found dead'

Is it worth predicting the near future of current events, they can be easily tested. If you accurate enough you could write the future news and change the way its reported. For example, people will be shocked to hear how the TV presenter but if newspapers predict the near future people wont be shocked. If this was carried out on a mass scale across the media once a news story breaks people will have an idea of the outcome.

Of course in some respects its ridiculous because news channels thrive on BREAKING NEWS but it could make a very different world if using the information as in this story the media and society had a clear outcome of events.

It could change society greatly, for example the girlfriend may never have taken cocaine.

[seanner689]

This already happens. News people predict the future all the time ... in elections, for example, they are always polling and giving predictions of the future outcome. They even select projected winners based on only a few percent of precincts reporting. Weather people predict the weather, anylists give speculations on the future of the housing market, job market, health care system, etc.

When someone goes missing, it's often speculated that the missing person may be dead ... I can't think of the guy's name, but his girlfriend went missing ... it then came to light that his ex-wife died in a hot tub a couple years prior. He is questioned by police ... etc. The news doesn't specifically say this woman will be found dead because it's not factual, they allow the readers to observe the (sometimes biased) facts and come to their own (sometimes obvious) conclusions.

Newspapers, for example, don't usually post a story about a missing person unless they believe that there is some potential for a sensational outcome. They are already making predictions on the outcome before you even read the story; they won't be inclined to follow a week long search if they think the guy's going to show up at his grandma's ranch just taking a holiday, it's just not good news.

Newspapers would be in big trouble (in terms of the law, as well as integrity to readers) if they just picked an outcome and reported it as fact, as opposed to stating it as a forecast, projection, prediction, opinion, etc. If you can predict the future with any degree of certainty, go buy some lottery tickets or play the stock market.

And I don't understand the last part in your post about the girl never having taken cocaine.

[garethp]

Your right, but I find that the news never go into details, for example I haven't head anything about if there will be any racial tensions if a black president is elected or if it will change the way society views women if a women is elected president. (women are paid less in the work place)

The news dont seems to come up with different options or outcomes of what could happen. Im convinced that humans have done so much, from inventing the light bulb, mapping DNA, internal surgery without cutting the flesh...endless discoveries (many of which by accident) which is all part of evolution, I think that one day we will be able to accurately predict the near future from very recent events.

Here is an example, one "big" breaking news story today is that Pete Doherty, a famous musician, in England has been photographed in prison under the influence of heroin, he only went in a few days ago. The thing is that he went to prison because of his past drug abuse and its been reported that drugs are freely available and cheap in prison so why are people surprised? Why weren't measures taken to ensure he couldn't get access to drugs. I'm convinced that this wouldn't of happened if the newspapers predicted and published headlines that he could take heroine even though he was in prison instead of printing headlines that he was sent to prison. The prison system would of then reacted to the headlines and put more measures into place to make sure he (as a celebrity) wouldn't get access to such drugs. This must be highly embarrassing for the prison system and people could well be sacked. Only an astute prison manager would put extra measures in place to ensure he was closely watched. We would have learnt from a highly probable future and reacted to it. Preventing Pete Doherty from getting access to heroin.

I think the media "deliberately" do this. The reporters are sitting there saying to themselves "it was only a matter of time" or "it was so obivious" yet they will report shock headlines about how he was photographed in prison taking herion. We need to overcome this step if we want to be able to "learn from a highly possible future".

[seanner689]

I can see a problem with this though, if reporters are going out and reporting potential problems in the hopes that they will be fixed, the actual event (if everything goes well) will not occur. In your case, let's say the media writes something to the extent of "drugs are rampant in jail, Pete can still access heroin". I see a couple of problems with this:

1. The newspapers lose credibility, and rightly so. The papers make these predictions, and the prison makes sure it doesn't happen. If newspapers continually put out front page stories that never materialize, people won't want to read it. Besides, it's not the media's job to be a moral watchdog for society, people should take responsibility for themselves.

2. The fact that events which actually occur make the biggest news, I think, is a very big incentive for people (ie the prison) to do their jobs.

If the news went out and reported that Pete Doherty could possibly get drugs in prison, it would be an unsensational story and once a band-aid was thrown on the problem, it would go out of the news.

The way news is reported now, the reporters don't give the prison instructions on how it should be run, it lets the prison do its thing, and as long as it doesn't screw up, it stays out of the news. I'd rather the news focus on a few screwups than focus on a dozen or so potential problems.

That being said, there are times where something is so certain in the future that a prediction can really emphesize the oversight or corruption. For example, many people were screaming that New Orleans wouldn't be able to withstand a strong hurricane. This helped save lives and also shed some light on the absolutely atrocious planning and maintainance of the levy. A good analogy is with police, they can charge you for some premeditation of a crime (murder) without actually committing that crime, but the majority of the time, people - however suspicious - are not detained/questioned until a crime has been committed. It's just not practical, IMO.

Anyways, just my opinion, but I think there's already too much speculation in the news. Anyone else want to chime in?

[garethp]

I do agree with you, certainly the media will lose credibility and essentially put themselves out of business but as a race I think understanding the future is something we will improve at, thanks to the Internet for example more and more people can voice there opinion, votes can be cast on all sorts of subjects.

For example a car manufacturer could produde lots of designs and let people vote for there design or features They could promote it as "The New Ford. Designed by You."

Of course this is a commercial use I think there will be more and more scope for people to shape the future through voting and providing feedback. What infuriates me is that all we get to do is to vote only every couple of years for our politicians. I believe if we can vote more regularly for what they do such as local things for example people will be more likely to votefor the main politicians.

So the media, companies and politicians can all use basic predictive logic and people voting to improve the future for everybody.