On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:05 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > If it is a throw away story, then maybe they should just throw it away. > > > > I think we all understand the concept of using a wire service, or some > > central source of information about basic stories. I don't think anyone > is > > under the illusion that local newscasts actually go out and gather most > of > > the news they report. But even television "journalists" should be > concerned > > about at least some shred of their credibility. Aside from just being > > embarrassing for them, this incident of just ripping and reading makes > > anyone who still trusted what they see on local news think again. > > People tend to watch local news in their market only. It's only when > someone aggregates the different newscasts that a person would know > that they were all reading the same copy. > True - that no doubt is why they think they can get away with it. If all pretense to being an actual newscast is to be abandoned, then I guess it doesn't make any difference. But any organization even pretending to be a credible source of news does not routinely take these kinds of short cuts, because when they occasionally become known, it undermines them. My own discipline is having trouble learning a similar lesson. I am a psychologist. In the news recently was a story about a Dutch psychologist, whose work has been widely published in peer reviewed journals, and covered in lay media outlets like the NYT and CNN. It turns out many of his published studies were bogus, based on made up or "dry-labbed" data. One reason this was possible is that the peer review mechanisms in place have been inadequate - psychological scientists have not been asked enough for their raw data, and not enough replications are being done, and published. Psychology journals have gotten lazy, because most of the time, most scientists are honest. But of course the procedures should be in place for the minority of times when scientists lie, and the reason is to protect the credibility of all psychologists. If I were trying to be a serious journalist working at a local station (I know, why would any serious journalist work at such a place? Well, it is tight job market) I would be pissed, just as I am pissed as a psychologist at the Dutch story. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
