On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com:
My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong.
That's the most we could ask of generalists. Details are far less important in the scheme of things.
My thought process goes "if they can't get simple details right, details available on the front page of a Google search, how do I know the rest of the article is correct?" What else has been misinterpreted? Exaggerated? Downplayed?
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
The same problem is true of almost every source you'll ever use. We can't really hope to be completely accurate - nothing is. Not newspapers, not books, not journals, nothing. In my office the journal Nature is the butt of jokes for printing so much wrong information - this is simply how life is. Reviewed, edited printed material from respected publishers is often wrong.
WilyD