next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Journalists are no more careless by nature than members of other professions
are, and we have a fine tradition accurate reporting. Many are the
journalists who lovingly quote a famous Chicago newspaper saying: "If your
mother says she loves you, check it out."
On the other hand, journalism also has a long tradition of expecting its
practitioners to write quickly and often, and to be able to write on a wide
range of topics without necessarily being knowledgeable about any of them.
This tradition is at odds with the other one, and unfortunately, quality and
accuracy are often sacrificed to speed and versatility. This tends to be
particularly true at daily papers, and perhaps even more so at the smaller
ones.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of careful, knowledgeable journalists working
today. You just have to look for them. In journalism as in all things,
caveat emptor.
WF (who made her living as a journalist and editor for 30 years)
-----Original Message-----
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of David & Alison Webster
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 11:01 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] "Foreign Plant Invading Little Albro Lake" in
Dartmouth...
Hi All, Aug 4, 2007
We all make mistakes but Journalists seem to make a career out doing
so. I expect the unrealistic deadlines of the profession is a major
reason; just not time to check. But being relatively uninformed no doubt
helps.
A favourite passage that suggests almost no traction is "...a
snowfall of 30 centimeters (or at least 12 feet in Celsius)..." [Joel
Jacobson, Mar 11, 1993].
Yt, DW
Andy Moir/Chris Callaghan wrote:
> Interesting comments about the media, Chris.
>
> "Is it any wonder that there is often so much confusion in relation
> to science or natural history stories on the part of the general
> public when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the media is
> so lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of
> the media reporting on stories in general ... :->)."
>
> I recently sat through two weeks of public hearings on the proposed
> quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the hearings, I also read all of the
> 6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement and the
> rebuttals). I heard many scientists discussing things such as water
> tables, geology, impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other
> topics. Some of these scientists worked for the proponent. Others
> worked for government. Still others did "independent reviews" of the
> many, many issues. Most of these scientists didn't agree on much of
> anything. Even scientists from various government departments
> couldn't agree. I don't have a problem with that. But I wish if they
> didn't know something, they would just say so, rather than claiming
> with certainty that their particular conclusions are, in fact,
> definitive. I make no excuses for the media making mistakes, but I
> don't have a lot of time for blaming the media for a lack of
> understanding of scientific issues, when scientists themselves are
> often as not muddying the waters as much as anybody else.
>
> One could say that if the level of some of the scientific expertise
> demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is any indication of the
> level of science in general, it's no wonder the public has so little
> faith in what scientists claim to be true.
>
> Andy Moir
>
> Freeport
>
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects