Whither freaque wave II

A tragic case recently may illustrate the peril of following the modern media. Because they don't really tell you what really had happened. The case actually can better be simply viewed by these headlines:

British holidaymaker drowned off Dominican Republic coast (Telegraph.co.uk)

A FREAK wave is believed to have claimed the life of a popular mum . . . (Sundaysun.co.uk)

Mum drowns whilst snorkelling on dream Caribbean holiday (Mirror.com.uk)

Freak wave could have killed Carlisle mum-of-three (newsandstar.co.uk)

Now that's all about what's there to know on what's going on. Of course I was alerted to these news by the word "FREAK"! Was there a freaque wave involved? Who knows? The word only appears in the headlines. Nothing in the detail reporting. I must conclude that this is NOT a case of freaque waves.

"A FREAK wave is believed . . ." and "Freak wave could have . . ." characterize the typical media practices. Using the words of "freak" or "rogue" is not merely a media fad. Sadly they really convey a brand of sensationalism that modern main stream media crazes. That applies to UK and US zombie medias alike.

Now here's a personal observation not based on any data or analysis: what do you think were the two most favorable sensational words the US or even the world media types like to use ? ? ? You guessed it! Yes, that would be "FREAK" and "OBAMA".