3 ms·
> They are just regurgitating a press briefing that came across their desk I would argue that's one of the problems. It's easy to just regurgitate press briefi
by virgilp 6y ago
> They are just regurgitating a press briefing that came across their desk
I would argue that's one of the problems. It's easy to just regurgitate press briefing, but that's _not_ what their job should be. I'd argue they could at the very least impose some form standards (don't publish "x% success", ask for exact metrics before publishing the press briefing). Asking them to vet that the study methodology was sane is too much - but asking them to use specificity & sensitivity instead of "success percent" isn't too much to ask.
- coliveira 6y agowhy do your think this the the work of a journalist? If this is important, then we should have some regulation saying how companies need to report experiments.
- virgilp 6y agowell, for starters, it's published on france24.com, that's a pretty good hint that it is the work of a journalist. I believe one shouldn't regulate _all speech_ (e.g. company press releases, or scientific publications); but I think it's fair to regulate reporting, to some extent. And you can even have a somewhat wide definition of "reporting" (e.g. if you collect audience size metrics (e.g. in order to get revenue from advertising), and your audience is greater than X, then you are reporting).
- nanis 6y agoIt is the job of the journalist to at least be able to ask "what do you mean by 95% accuracy?" and to publish the answer given or the fact that no satisfactory answer is given because the reader is not in a position to be able to ask that question to the entity whose results are being publicized.