Hi Steve, It's unfortunate about those facts being wrong but after having worked at a newspaper many year here are a couple observations about reporters and their stories you might be interested in. Good reporters often call their subjects back and read back parts of the story to check the facts. One reason reporters don't generally allow people to read entire stories (or photographers show them every image) is because the subjects are likely to start editing the work with comments like: "did I say that?" or "geez, I'm not sure I like that picture, it's too revealing," etc, etc. The longer I work as a photographer, the more I see that trust is crucial between subject and reporter. I stick around to shoot alot of pictures if I can because I want to represent the subject as honestly and positively as possible. The thing reporters and photographers hate most are errors and at my newspaper, every error in fact is corrected on the front page. Then we each have to fill out a form to give to our editor explaining how we made the error. While we continue to make errors, at least we can get a correction in the next day. I find it interesting that this rarely happens on TV. Reports are generally brief and inaccuracies just float off into the air never to be addressed again. Best regards, Bob
On 1/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave and all, No, the big rock did not sell yet. And I am pretty sure the TV show that the story is supposed to be quoting did not state that it "sold for a million dollars," only that it is "worth about a million dollars." I just think the reporter got his facts wrong. Imagine that, a reporter getting their facts wrong. I did count 3 errors in the Travel Channel show. There are a couple errors in the Wired Magazine article. And I think the Wired Science TV show got it pretty close, although I would argue the finer details of some of the points in the show. I am not even sure if any one of the many newspaper stories this last 15 months has got it 100% correct. Newsweek had a ONE LINE quote in their Nov. 21, 2005 issue on the big Brenham Kansas find, and you would think that they could at least get that right, right? Well, they got the one quote from me correct, but then they credited the quote to: "Professional meteorite hunter Steve Arnold, on his 1,400-pound find in Arkansas..." OK, I guess an argument in their defense could be made that "Kansas" can be found inside the word "Arkansas" so they didn't get it all that wrong. Reporters have a funny phobia of actually letting people they interview proof read their stories. So virtually every story ever printed or broadcasted in every article or program gets some of their facts wrong. And what you ask are these reporter's editors doing? I don't know, I ask the same question. Steve Arnold, P.M.H. *********** In a message dated 1/2/2007 10:56:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes: "It won't bring as much as an earlier find: a 1,400-pound space rock that resembles a massive, slightly rotting yam. Ugly is only skin deep, however. This monstrosity sold for a cool million." So, I didn't know the "rotten yam" had sold, is that true? I like yams. Dave F. ************** ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
