Misinformation Kills Children

Toys_should_not_kill_children

Or something like that.  Here's a silly story that was posted on The Consumerist in December of 2007.  Actually, it's not silly.  It talks about how there were 22 deaths and over 200,000 injuries attributed to toys in 2006.  Serious stuff, especially for parents of young kids.

However, they used the above image (actually entitled toys_should_not_kill_children.jpg) as a part of the article.  Never do they say a Dunny or a Sun-Min + David toy was responsible for killing a child.  But if you put that photo next to an article about toys killing kids, one would only assume that this toy is responsible for some bodily harm to a child.  But it's not!

Maybe the editor liked the look of the toy...?  But it's essentially the same as writing an article about a child molester and then posting a photo of a random guy you found on the internet (renaming that photo evil_molester.jpg) without concern for his reputation.

If you're angered, outraged, disappointed in these toys being incorrectly associated with injuring kids...shoot chris@consumerist.com an email and ask him to replace or delete the photo.


16 thoughts on “Misinformation Kills Children

  1. I don't understand your outrage, so he picked a dunny, so what? Are you afraid people are gonna blame the vinyl toy scene? No one would assume that particular toy is responsible for anything. They had to pick something and they happened to pick something close to your heart. You're making a big deal over nothing and your comparison isn't even close.

  2. I don't understand your outrage, so he picked a dunny, so what? Are you afraid people are gonna blame the vinyl toy scene? No one would assume that particular toy is responsible for anything. They had to pick something and they happened to pick something close to your heart. You're making a big deal over nothing and your comparison isn't even close.

  3. I think people will see the photo that accompanies an article about 22 children dying from toy related accidents and somehow associate that with being an unsafe toy. Why not use a photo of lawn darts or some other toy that's actually led to injuries in children?

    I think the comparison is accurate. It's using an image irresponsibly and out of context. I'm sure Kidrobot, David and Sun-Min wouldn't like their creation somehow being associated with killing kids. And by attaching the above photo to an article about that, it's what The Consumerist is doing.

    (And Kidrobot, David and Sun-Min all have a pretty good defamation claim if they need to go that route)

  4. I think people will see the photo that accompanies an article about 22 children dying from toy related accidents and somehow associate that with being an unsafe toy. Why not use a photo of lawn darts or some other toy that's actually led to injuries in children?

    I think the comparison is accurate. It's using an image irresponsibly and out of context. I'm sure Kidrobot, David and Sun-Min wouldn't like their creation somehow being associated with killing kids. And by attaching the above photo to an article about that, it's what The Consumerist is doing.

    (And Kidrobot, David and Sun-Min all have a pretty good defamation claim if they need to go that route)

  5. I saw this article a few days ago when I received the link from a friend's mass emailing and until now thought this Horvath toy killed a kid.

  6. I saw this article a few days ago when I received the link from a friend's mass emailing and until now thought this Horvath toy killed a kid.

  7. mikelite, there are comments on David Horvath's blog that imply he has been receiving hate mail as a result of this article. Any outrage over Consumerist using that pic with the article and keeping it up despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the article and has produced unwarranted negative reactions towards David Horvath is entrely warranted.

  8. mikelite, there are comments on David Horvath's blog that imply he has been receiving hate mail as a result of this article. Any outrage over Consumerist using that pic with the article and keeping it up despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the article and has produced unwarranted negative reactions towards David Horvath is entrely warranted.

  9. I think the image is quite appropriate. I never once thought that a dunny killed any children. I see a toy that is sad and representing all toys as a whole.

    I can see that some would assume this particular toy caused harm because it is used for the article… BUT,

    Just because this particular toy wasn't responsible doesn't mean the manufacturers hands are clean. ALL toy makers need to police the entire industry. This is coming from both a toy collecter and a parent.

  10. I think the image is quite appropriate. I never once thought that a dunny killed any children. I see a toy that is sad and representing all toys as a whole.

    I can see that some would assume this particular toy caused harm because it is used for the article… BUT,

    Just because this particular toy wasn't responsible doesn't mean the manufacturers hands are clean. ALL toy makers need to police the entire industry. This is coming from both a toy collecter and a parent.

  11. The most distressing thing about the article is how sensational and alarmist it is. Some of the "toy-related deaths" include getting hit by a car while playing with a ball. Really? That's toy related?

    Another example of how the media hasn't got anything of merit to say, so it just tries to scare the crap out of people to make itself feel important.

    Yellow journalism at its finest.

  12. The most distressing thing about the article is how sensational and alarmist it is. Some of the "toy-related deaths" include getting hit by a car while playing with a ball. Really? That's toy related?

    Another example of how the media hasn't got anything of merit to say, so it just tries to scare the crap out of people to make itself feel important.

    Yellow journalism at its finest.

  13. I agree with moist about how reckless
    the media can get. I also sent an e-mail
    to the Consumerist thanking them for
    replacing the photo while pointing out
    the toy in the replacement photo isn't
    anywhere on the list of "dangerous" toys
    they were reporting on.

  14. I agree with moist about how reckless
    the media can get. I also sent an e-mail
    to the Consumerist thanking them for
    replacing the photo while pointing out
    the toy in the replacement photo isn't
    anywhere on the list of "dangerous" toys
    they were reporting on.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.