Most reporters are interested in, and skilled at writing narratives. They generally are not interested in or skilled at analytical approaches to politics and society. Professor Auld's work was absorbed into the narrative form "man bites dog." That is, "everyone believes hard work and sobriety leads to wealth, but Auld shows the opposite." The story was the thing, not the data or the analysis.
On bad days I'm convinced that narratives and anecdotes drive all public policy. But I still think there could be a kind of journalism that blends narratives and analysis in a useful way. Professor McCloskey has written a lot about the need for narrative in economics. However, the fact remains that the market for journalism prefers a good story to an ambiguous truth most of the time. John Samples Cato -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Auld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 7:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Me and the eminent econometrician Dr. Joyce I am somewhat surprised no one has written to this list to give me a bad time over my recent spate of media attention, for example http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51889,00.html I found the whole experience of being misquoted, misrepresented, and generally mistreated quite fascinating, albeit annoying. I can state for the record that "correlation does not imply causation" is far too advanced a concept for most reporters, even those who are supposed to have a technical bent. My advice: When some reporter calls you up and asks you about your research, say "No comment," hang up, change your phone number. Cheers, Chris Auld Department of Economics University of Calgary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
