David,
I agree that the reportage can often give the illusion of a false
balance, but journalists are not usually the ones qualified to assess
the reliability of one side versus another. Sometimes the minority view
turns out to be correct.
Dave
On 4/9/2011 11:09 AM, David L. McNeely wrote:
I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to
judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when
journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that
the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons
with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as
cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to
misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact,
is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change,
while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is
real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy,
but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is.
Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding.
So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell
when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was
wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge
and understanding.
mcneely
--
------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
