Black... is white

...Some say, and others report, to try and grab a tad more ratings or push their views using dubious proxies.

In a world revolving round the internet (which is catching on, and some now see merit in enhancing with lots more of other folks' money), with folk getting their time-poor news fixes from such as Google, Twitter, etc, I notice one often tends to get sample summaries, with URL, headlines and, crucially, possibly first lines of copy.

Upon which you form an first impression, and then decide whether to pursue further.

Hence I am a tad concerned about journalistic and editorial trends that employ the following technique, especially with the latter:

Headline (often also of dubious summary value, depending on agenda of the guys writing it)

Copy: [Rampant opinion/untruth/dodgy/claim], followed by an attribution to a [person, generic, unspecified 'them', latest daft research by quango/charity/thinktank with pension pot to top up], often with the added spice of being set in the future ['will say']. As in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/06/the_return_of_p.html#comments

The country cannot afford it. It is no longer militarily necessary.

Tonight, Nick Clegg uses those arguments to become...

At best, that doesn't strike me as totally competent, or indeed kosher reporting.