I suggest the learned gentleman re-read the article and reply with a
quote that shows the Chronicle of Higher Education or the reporter is
making the allegation of fraud rather than the company, Onconome. The
allegation is clearly attributed to the company (the plaintiff). The
story likewise details some of the reasons why the company feels it has
been mistreated, and it offered the chance for all defendants to comment.
If you perceive any dearth of balance, that dearth is due to the fact
that all of the defendants declined to comment. Their decision is no
reason to hold the story until more facts come to light -- if that was
the case, the public would be denied knowledge of much important
information (such as the notion that cigarettes cause cancer) until the
lawyers have all had their say. All too often, what they say will never
be available to the public -- too much important information on matters
like consumer and occupational safety gets buried in confidential
settlements of lawsuits such as this.
The original subject line of this thread, "falsifying results in
clinical research, why so common?" says more about the mindset of the
original poster than it does about the quality or ethics of journalism.
The report itself doesn't say falsification of research results is
common; in fact, the lede says that such lawsuits are quite rare.
I as the learned gentleman: What essential facts are missing that would
justify holding this story? Speaking of missing information, without
specifying what is missing, brings up the spectre of straw-men. (Note
that I concede the reporter should have specified something about where
and when the lawsuits were filed. The failure to do so is sloppy
reporting and/or editing -- as a former copy editor, I know that it is
sometimes the editor's fault.)
It may be true that the company's lawsuit lacks merit. Only time and
jurisprudence will tell. If the lawsuit proves meritless, the
researcher's reputation will have unnecessarily suffered, but the legal
victory will do much to redeem it. But if the plaintiff prevails, and
no one reported on the suit until after it is over, I can see people
justifiably criticizing the press for its reluctance to hold the rich
and powerful institutions of Johns Hopkins and Pitt accountable.
In this case, no verification will likely be possible until the trial,
and even if the allegations seem to have merit based on the evidence
presented, the press and public may never learn of the allegations nor
of their validity if the case is settled confidentially. I'm not a fan
of confidential settlements myself, especially in medical matters like
this, as such secrecy may cost lives. But I don't control the legal system.
To further push what appears to be your analogy, should the press have
refrained from reporting on the activities of a certain Mr. John Gotti
until AFTER he was convicted of various racketeering charges? Gotti was
a murderer, either directly or indirectly by giving the order to kill,
but from your argument it would seem the press should remain silent on
the activities of the Cosa Nostra until one of its members is convicted
of the crime, then the press should discuss only the specific crime.
DISCLAIMER: I am not equating Getzenberg with Gotti, nor am I saying
Getzenberg did anything wrong, but I am pushing the implications of Mr.
Tyson's call for verification before publication to one of its logical
conclusions given the realities of the legal system and the press.
The reporter did all the verification needed -- she verified the
lawsuits had been filed. Remember that the lawsuits themselves are
news, and potentially important news. The resolution of those lawsuits
(regardless of who prevails) will likewise be news, and I hope that the
Chronicle will have the institutional memory to publish follow-up
reports as the legal wrangling develops.
The learned gentleman misunderstood my comment on paying for the paper.
There is no straw-man -- I am not accusing him of stealing extra
copies of newspapers from the boxes on the corner. I am speaking of a
time-honored fact of journalistic life: "All the news that fits." (The
Rolling Stone gets it right, not The New York Times.) Adding complete
references takes space (in print), or time (in broadcast). Both are
limited resources. Do we want to waste the space or time with
information most readers have no need nor interest in seeing? Or do we
make intelligent decisions on what matters most to most news consumers.
A reference list at the end of an article is a waste, and a
potentially expensive one given the cost of paper and ink and the
limited time in the day. (Try writing for radio, it is an exercise in
figuring out what is REALLY important.)
Even in the relatively unconstrained environment of online media, the
references have to compete for the reader's attention with navigation
bars, images, ads, etc.
I will point out that the story in question did provide links to other
sources (Johns Hopkins's press release and a commentary on the wisdom of
issuing the release). It does not link to the documents filed as part
of the lawsuit because those documents are not readily available. While
they are public documents, they are not freely available on the Web. To
access the filings in the Pitt federal suit, one has to have access to
the PACER database, and they still have to pay to print or even download
documents from it. Even then, I don't think the documentary evidence
for either the plaintiff's case or the defendants' case would be
available -- only the documents containing the legal arguments could be
accessed, if I remember correctly.
A lot of things are killing newspapers, not just tradition. I would say
it's more than "kinda" sad, but I suspect we are both in substantial
agreement here.
Dave
P.S. One other fact of print journalism life: to add one page to
accommodate extra information, one has to add a minimum of two, and more
often than not four. That adds substantial cost to the printing of an
edition.
Wayne Tyson wrote:
Ecolog:
I'm happy to hear that Lawrence doesn't stick to journalism. While I
appreciate his impromptu lesson (I can always improve my journalistic
skills), I respectfully submit the following:
1. Ipso facto, the CHE article did, at the very least, IMPLY that the
allegations were true, by virtue of the fact that so many interpreted it
that way ("falsifying results in clinical research, why so common?"),
and the piece lacked the usual qualifiers.
2. I have no quarrel with the fact that the lawsuit was reported, only
with the fact that facts were missing, leaving the reader to presume
(increasingly ill-justified in this blogged-up avalanche of rumor and
innuendo that passes for "news" these days) that falsification of data
"probably" occurred in this case. At the very least, the lust for
scooping gratification should be held off until some verification can be
done and cited. Clearly, news judgment suffered. Not that the
possibility or probability that some fakery has occurred, but that since
"the ripple effects could prove devastating to researchers' ability to
fund research," people should not go off half-cocked.
3. Good journalism eschews straw-man fallacies, above all--above all.
Nowhere did I say or imply that I did not want to pay for the paper.
CHE, for example, is at liberty to charge as much (to libraries and to
individuals) as it wishes, and can thus confine its readership to a
narrow elite or a broad population--if that is its goal (which it
apparently is not). I do want to pay for at least one good paper; I will
go to the library or the Internet for the rest. Or, as in this case, I
will merely attempt to respond to a post on a listserv. Nowhere did I
express an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the charged
parties; on the contrary, I urged that judgment be reserved.
4. Tradition is killing "traditional" newspapers, and it's kinda sad.
That's my opinion, not necessarily a "fact."
WT
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
