ALWAYS LOOK FOR A PRIMARY SOURCE.
THEN MAKE SURE THAT PRIMARY SOURCE SAYS WHAT THEY SAY IT SAYS.
Sorry for the caps lock, but some people seem to doubt that other would actually fabricate stats to prove a point. They do, and in the New York Times no less.
H/T Instapundit.
Your example helps show that there are good reasons why public opinions of the press have worsened in the past generation. Some examples of worsened public opinions of the press follow.
ReplyDeleteStories are often inaccurate: from 34% in 1985 to 66% in 2011.
Tend to favor one side: from 53% in 1985 to 77% in 2011.
Often influenced by powerful people and organizations: from 53% in 1985 to 80% in 2011.
My perception of journalists is that many present themselves as experts when they don’t know their coccyx from their ulna. Which I could have state less tactfully.
I said earlier they taught journalists to write. I'm not sure that's quite accurate. They are taught to write quickly and get the story out the door quickly. Fact checking slows things down, and templates speed things up (social or political story arcs).
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the newsroom only hires either trunk or tail holders, and we never get a feel of the rest of the elephant.
I heard at one point that apparently the science writers were some of the first ones laid off when newspapers started to go downhill, as they were some of the best paid. I don't know if that's true or not, but it would certainly explain a few things.
ReplyDeleteJust to substantiate: Hare, the actual researcher they interviewed trying to track down the information, is the real deal in psychopathy research. His checklist is indeed the major tool used for the task. If he is holding those numbers at arm's length, our first instinct should be to do the same.
ReplyDelete