keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
>It has been edited to add the bits about doubting the veracity of the
>claim. The original article expressed no doubts at all, though it didn't
>actually go so far as to endorse the claim.
I can't comment at length on the original as I do not recollect what was
in it.
As for the edited version, I suspect that the BBC is used to its readers
(and audience) being generally sufficiently sophisticated, skeptical and
alert to pick up on the sledgehammer caveats it entered. I took from both
the original and edited version that one should be skeptical of the chaps
claims as they had not been independently validated. I am unclear as to
why you did not.
>First of all, it's a cop-out to write things like
>
> American inventor Kim Dandurand, who launched the product in
> Glasgow, said research showed his product was effective in
> removing any harmful effects.
>
>without actually finding out what this research is, who did it, and who
>reviewed it. Anybody in the world can say "research supports blah blah
>blah" about anything, and any wanker can type such a quote into a word
>processor and print it.
Why do you assume that the reader is not sophisticated enough to have
worked this out for themselves? And to have read it in the context of the
other, more skeptical, quotes?
>Printing someone's statements without any sign of refutation implies to
>me, and I suspect to most readers, that you have reasonable grounds to
>believe that the statement is true.
I expect journalists to at least report what people say - not necessarily
attempt to refute them, I also expect them to seek expert opinion in
matters of which they have no expertise and print that as well - which is
what was done in the (edited) story.
> Responsible journalists do some independent
>research or ask appropriate questions to try to determine the veracity
>of the statement.
As far as I can see, the appropriate questions were asked of the man from
the government safely body. And printed. It wasn't an "in-depth scientific
refutation" - nor did it pretend to be. It wasn't a "science" story. It
was a "product launch" - possibly beware - story. As such the (edited)
story strikes me as "overkill"..
The American media tends, to this British eye, to treat the reader/viewer
as an idiot and spell even very simple things out in detail. In the edited
version the BBC dumbs down rather and enters its caveats with a
sledgehammer - alas. I found the original (as I recollect it) amusingly
arch in its treatment of the claims for the sticker. I expect most -
though clearly you are an exception, readers to have done the same.
Nick
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Oct 5 11:15:41 2001