3 ms·

This is a great summary of the problems that I have with newspaper articles. I've had a problem with the way news was reported ever since I learned to do real r

by biotech 17y ago

This is a great summary of the problems that I have with newspaper articles. I've had a problem with the way news was reported ever since I learned to do real research. usually, my argument revolves around two points: - Lack of Context; this actually can be split into the first two points that this article makes: "The longstanding facts" and "How journalists know what they know". - The Monopoly of the Associated Press. The argument against monopoly is hardly unique to the press, though. When I read an article in the newspaper, there are many questions that come to my mind. In the worst case scenario, I'm reading an AP article which omits the author's name. WTF? The author's credentials and background (including their history of previous articles) are very important in certain cases (and at the least gives me some idea of where they are coming from). Any technical researcher who writes a paper must provide references to be taken seriously. Journalists should also have some obligation to cite background materials. If they take a quote out of context, they should tell me where I can find the full discussion. If there is some important historical background to the story, I'd like a reference to that information as well.

JacobAldridge 17y ago
>In the worst case scenario, I'm reading an AP article which omits the author's name. WTF? Would you also expect the sub-editor's name, both from AP/AAP or Reuters and from the publication which edited the wire story? The chief-of-staff probably assigned that story over the alternatives, which would have been biased (because she's human too) - so do you want her name? And don't forget the section editor, the primary editor, the publication's owner (or owners). It's a nice suggestion in theory. In reality, having the author's name can be more misleading than having none at all, since it assumes they have more control than they really do.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- biotech 17y ago
  You make two good points: 1. Yes, I would like to know the editors of each article. 2. "The chief-of-staff probably assigned that story over the alternatives, which would have been biased (because she's human too) - so do you want her name?" I don't want only her name, I also want to know the reasoning she used to chose these particular stories over the others. Although I realize that you are [probably] being critical, I do believe that you have some good suggestions. Even if this introduced more overhead per story, I believe the quality of each story would increase dramatically.

by biotech 17y ago

JacobAldridge 17y ago

>In the worst case scenario, I'm reading an AP article which omits the author's name. WTF? Would you also expect the sub-editor's name, both from AP/AAP or Reuters and from the publication which edited the wire story? The chief-of-staff probably assigned that story over the alternatives, which would have been biased (because she's human too) - so do you want her name? And don't forget the section editor, the primary editor, the publication's owner (or owners). It's a nice suggestion in theory. In reality, having the author's name can be more misleading than having none at all, since it assumes they have more control than they really do.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
biotech 17y ago
You make two good points: 1. Yes, I would like to know the editors of each article. 2. "The chief-of-staff probably assigned that story over the alternatives, which would have been biased (because she's human too) - so do you want her name?" I don't want only her name, I also want to know the reasoning she used to chose these particular stories over the others. Although I realize that you are [probably] being critical, I do believe that you have some good suggestions. Even if this introduced more overhead per story, I believe the quality of each story would increase dramatically.