3 ms·

I’m not sure leaving out relevant details because they are poorly understood is good journalistic practice, especially when those details are central to what’s

by Veen 8y ago

I’m not sure leaving out relevant details because they are poorly understood is good journalistic practice, especially when those details are central to what’s being discussed. It would only take a paragraph to clarify what XX, XY, and intersex means. It’s exactly what the writer of the linked article did.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. You think I meant they did it on purpose to pander to an uneducated audience. Au contraire. I'm saying the reporters probably didn't really get it.
- Veen 8y ago
  Perhaps Hanlon’s Razor is the right approach to judging the way this is handled in much of the media. You might be right, in which case the responsibility is on the editors and fact checkers at those newspapers to ensure that reporters don’t make such mistakes.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    That presumes they understand it. I will make one last attempt to make my original point: I have a homozygous recessive genetic disorder, as does my oldest son. Genetics 101 tells me that my other son and ex husband are both carriers. People who have the same genetic disorder or who are caring for a child with the same genetic disorder have asked me how I know these immediate relatives are carriers. So my confidence that most people know anything about basic genetics is pretty low -- even if they happen to be reporters, editors, etc.
    - Veen 8y ago
      No, I understand your point. My point is that they have a responsibility to educate themselves or talk to subject-matter experts before they publish. Ignorance isn’t a defence or mitigation. It’s literally their job to pick up the phone and talk to people who understand the issues at hand before publishing misleading articles read by millions.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Point taken. Though writing simply doesn't pay well these days, if at all. That fact is undermining the quality of the writing we are seeing. Newspapers and all kinds of other writing is being squeezed financially. Ad revenue is way down. Local papers are shutting down left and right. Etc. As a poverty-stricken writer myself who gets told to quit my bitching and get a real job, I'm not super sympathetic to the world's demands for good writing that is also magically completely free.
        Veen 8y ago
        I’m also a writer (ghostwriting mostly) so I sympathize with that view, but not when it comes to major newspapers publishing misleading content, especially when the “mistakes” seem coordinated to support an emotive or political agenda.
        earthling77 8y ago
        That is the most pathetic excuse I've heard in a long time. Maybe if journalists actually did proper and thorough research, the field wouldn't be so despised and the dumpster fire it is today. The world demands good writing and the fact that it isn't happening is the reason news outlets are going under. Research is free assuming you have a computer and the internet, but if you're a writer, you already have those at your disposal; any whiny excuse thereafter is complete BS.

by Veen 8y ago

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. You think I meant they did it on purpose to pander to an uneducated audience. Au contraire. I'm saying the reporters probably didn't really get it.

Veen 8y ago
Perhaps Hanlon’s Razor is the right approach to judging the way this is handled in much of the media. You might be right, in which case the responsibility is on the editors and fact checkers at those newspapers to ensure that reporters don’t make such mistakes.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  That presumes they understand it. I will make one last attempt to make my original point: I have a homozygous recessive genetic disorder, as does my oldest son. Genetics 101 tells me that my other son and ex husband are both carriers. People who have the same genetic disorder or who are caring for a child with the same genetic disorder have asked me how I know these immediate relatives are carriers. So my confidence that most people know anything about basic genetics is pretty low -- even if they happen to be reporters, editors, etc.
  - Veen 8y ago
    No, I understand your point. My point is that they have a responsibility to educate themselves or talk to subject-matter experts before they publish. Ignorance isn’t a defence or mitigation. It’s literally their job to pick up the phone and talk to people who understand the issues at hand before publishing misleading articles read by millions.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Point taken. Though writing simply doesn't pay well these days, if at all. That fact is undermining the quality of the writing we are seeing. Newspapers and all kinds of other writing is being squeezed financially. Ad revenue is way down. Local papers are shutting down left and right. Etc. As a poverty-stricken writer myself who gets told to quit my bitching and get a real job, I'm not super sympathetic to the world's demands for good writing that is also magically completely free.
      - Veen 8y ago
        I’m also a writer (ghostwriting mostly) so I sympathize with that view, but not when it comes to major newspapers publishing misleading content, especially when the “mistakes” seem coordinated to support an emotive or political agenda.
      - earthling77 8y ago
        That is the most pathetic excuse I've heard in a long time. Maybe if journalists actually did proper and thorough research, the field wouldn't be so despised and the dumpster fire it is today. The world demands good writing and the fact that it isn't happening is the reason news outlets are going under. Research is free assuming you have a computer and the internet, but if you're a writer, you already have those at your disposal; any whiny excuse thereafter is complete BS.