A novel idea would be to publish what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Seems a
simple fix to me.
Since rebuttals are getting chopped up, sliced and diced, and edited
until they no longer convey the originally intended message, or worse
gets turned into a message which might reinforce NYT's own stance,
perhaps the NYT should publish "Unedited" rebuttals. Thereby keeping the
purity of the letters, and journalism. Simply limit the number of words
to say 250 or 500, and set some basic ground rules. Be professional, no
profanity, verifiable facts, etc.
This would of course require extra time and effort and perhaps research
and fact checking on the NYT's part though. ;)
Regards,
Eric
On 4/12/2011 12:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote:
Hi All,
The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that
they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at
best,
misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited
version:
"As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32
specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered
in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens
recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s?
Just four."
Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted:
" ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and
others,
32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as
well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts
since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not
one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis
mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only
four such specimens."
This significant error of omission invites researchers "in-the-know" to
accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling
into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the
problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they
don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless
removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not
like prose: every word is usually there for a reason.
--Rob
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
