3 ms·

That is a pretty sweeping generalization. I work for a public radio station. Our journalists routinely interview primary sources, sometimes live on the air. We

That is a pretty sweeping generalization. I work for a public radio station. Our journalists routinely interview primary sources, sometimes live on the air. We also transcribe those interviews and put them on the web. We've also been increasing the size of our news staff, not decreasing. It's not all doom and gloom, it just depends on the medium and the revenue model.

michaelbuckbee 16y ago
Can you provide a link to your station's website? It would be nice to have an example to look at and compare other outlets.
alanfalcon 16y ago
I've noticed this on KPCC in Orange County, CA - sound bytes from a mayor's speech that's being covered, or a quick interview with someone at HBGary after the whole Annonymous attack. On one level these sound bytes are superfluous, they don't add anything beyond what the reporter is already telling us. But in addition to adding new voices to the newscast, it also assures the listener that the reporter was at the mayor's speech, has talked to people affected at HBGary, that we're not just getting regurgitated news stories as are so common (as pointed out by this article). Even the news story about Guitar Hero being cancelled had sound clips from "music experts" about the effect the game had on popular culture (essentially, his kid likes classic rock and roll now when he never liked it before) - that had limited news value, but real exclusive added value for the radio station. So KPCC is one example of a news organization doing things above board.
- justinph 16y ago
  KPCC is one of our stations.
tokenadult 16y ago
Our journalists routinely interview primary sources That would be good journalistic practice, but that is not what Ben Goldacre is talking about in the blog post submitted here on HN. He is talking about news stories that purport to report on the result of a research study and what he is looking for is a citation (or a link, as appropriate to the journalistic medium) to the published research study. Not doing that doesn't pass the smell test for Goldacre. http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/if-you-dont-link-to-primary-sources-you-are-d http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/if-you-dont-link-to-primary... Of course, even if the published study is cited, it still has to be examined carefully, http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html but there is no reason to hide the published study from the consumer of the journalistic report. You are referring to persons as "sources," the same way I did when I was a journalist, while Goldacre is referring to publications as sources.
- krakensden 16y ago
  If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? Also, it's hard to publish links on the radio. Finally, I think you missed his point- not all news organizations are going the tabloid route.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? My answer, as a former journalist, is that whether or not that would count would depend on how well the reporter prepared for the interview. Good preparation for an interview of a scientist who just published a news-making paper would be reading the paper before the interview. It's just as easy to cite papers on the radio as in print to make the paper findable, by saying something along the lines of "a paper by A. Smith and B. Jones published in the 1 April 2001 issue of Science." That's not a complete citation format, but Goldacre's complaint in the blog post submitted here is about mentions of papers where perhaps an author was mentioned, and perhaps a journal title was mentioned, but the date of the paper was not mentioned, and a link to the paper found in a press release was not reproduced in the online version of a print publication that often carries links to other online content. After edit: I agree with you that you are responding to an exaggeration in a comment to the submitted article, with an example of a news organization that does better at fact-checking than the news organizations mentioned in the submitted link, and I too think there are happy exceptions to the tendency in some places for journalism not to cite published research. Here's wishing for more journalism to emulate the best current examples of careful research and meticulous citation of sources.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? No. If you're reporting on science, for example, the interview is unlikely to provide sufficient information. The interview is information for telling a story. Why? Because journalists aren't subject-matter-experts - they're story-tellers. > Finally, I think you missed his point- not all news organizations are going the tabloid route. You miss the point. The fact that some news organizations don't trade coverage for access does not imply that those organizations are producing good news. It just means that they're not committing a specific (albeit common) sin. In other news "both sides don't like my coverage" does not imply "my coverage is good/fair/balanced/etc". However, it would be nice if you provided a link to all of the interview, not just the results of your edit.

michaelbuckbee 16y ago

Can you provide a link to your station's website? It would be nice to have an example to look at and compare other outlets.

alanfalcon 16y ago

I've noticed this on KPCC in Orange County, CA - sound bytes from a mayor's speech that's being covered, or a quick interview with someone at HBGary after the whole Annonymous attack. On one level these sound bytes are superfluous, they don't add anything beyond what the reporter is already telling us. But in addition to adding new voices to the newscast, it also assures the listener that the reporter was at the mayor's speech, has talked to people affected at HBGary, that we're not just getting regurgitated news stories as are so common (as pointed out by this article). Even the news story about Guitar Hero being cancelled had sound clips from "music experts" about the effect the game had on popular culture (essentially, his kid likes classic rock and roll now when he never liked it before) - that had limited news value, but real exclusive added value for the radio station. So KPCC is one example of a news organization doing things above board.

justinph 16y ago
KPCC is one of our stations.

tokenadult 16y ago

Our journalists routinely interview primary sources That would be good journalistic practice, but that is not what Ben Goldacre is talking about in the blog post submitted here on HN. He is talking about news stories that purport to report on the result of a research study and what he is looking for is a citation (or a link, as appropriate to the journalistic medium) to the published research study. Not doing that doesn't pass the smell test for Goldacre. http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/if-you-dont-link-to-primary-sources-you-are-d http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/if-you-dont-link-to-primary... Of course, even if the published study is cited, it still has to be examined carefully, http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html but there is no reason to hide the published study from the consumer of the journalistic report. You are referring to persons as "sources," the same way I did when I was a journalist, while Goldacre is referring to publications as sources.

krakensden 16y ago
If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? Also, it's hard to publish links on the radio. Finally, I think you missed his point- not all news organizations are going the tabloid route.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? My answer, as a former journalist, is that whether or not that would count would depend on how well the reporter prepared for the interview. Good preparation for an interview of a scientist who just published a news-making paper would be reading the paper before the interview. It's just as easy to cite papers on the radio as in print to make the paper findable, by saying something along the lines of "a paper by A. Smith and B. Jones published in the 1 April 2001 issue of Science." That's not a complete citation format, but Goldacre's complaint in the blog post submitted here is about mentions of papers where perhaps an author was mentioned, and perhaps a journal title was mentioned, but the date of the paper was not mentioned, and a link to the paper found in a press release was not reproduced in the online version of a print publication that often carries links to other online content. After edit: I agree with you that you are responding to an exaggeration in a comment to the submitted article, with an example of a news organization that does better at fact-checking than the news organizations mentioned in the submitted link, and I too think there are happy exceptions to the tendency in some places for journalism not to cite published research. Here's wishing for more journalism to emulate the best current examples of careful research and meticulous citation of sources.
- anamax 16y ago
  > If they interviewed one of the scientists whose name was on the paper, wouldn't that count? No. If you're reporting on science, for example, the interview is unlikely to provide sufficient information. The interview is information for telling a story. Why? Because journalists aren't subject-matter-experts - they're story-tellers. > Finally, I think you missed his point- not all news organizations are going the tabloid route. You miss the point. The fact that some news organizations don't trade coverage for access does not imply that those organizations are producing good news. It just means that they're not committing a specific (albeit common) sin. In other news "both sides don't like my coverage" does not imply "my coverage is good/fair/balanced/etc". However, it would be nice if you provided a link to all of the interview, not just the results of your edit.