Honorable Forum:
"'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark." --Alexander Reid
Martin
But "what we have here is a failure to communicate." --Strother Martin's
character in the movie, "Cool Hand Luke." Failure to communicate about
communicating? Pretty embarrassing.
And let me make clear what I said at the end of my last post by correcting
it thus: "Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a
whole (straw-)man." This practice is widespread, and thought by its
practitioners to display how clever they are in debate, it is a hollow,
phony fallacy. Some debaters use it as a diversionary tactic to shift
attention away from the real issue, and too frequently this takes the form
of ad hominem attacks.
While I agree that the real world strongly resembles Meiss' view of the
facts, I stop short of actually endorsing what I hope he is joking
about--hammering a point until it is accepted as the "fact" that it is (or
is not); it is precisely the root of what we want to prevent--distortion,
unintended or intentional. While "framing" may be an effective expedient,
manipulation is no substitute for a continuing pursuit of the truth, no
matter how inconvenient--or apparently effective. This is not to say that
one should not insist on sticking with the truth and repeating it often,
only that if it is used as a device it reduces credibility--and often a
whole group suffers for the sins of a few. Manipulation is the refuge of
coward and scoundrels, but don't worry overmuch, it eventually backfires
when the deception is seen for what it is. Sunshine is a powerful
disinfectant.
This discussion is an extremely important one; it could have implications
far beyond this place in the vast and expanding cyberspace, and ultimately
the future. Obviously, it is not easy. But hang in there everyone--let's not
drop the challenge to clear up the issue of clearing up issues. With any
luck, our discussion might help create a kind of breakthrough, so don't drop
out when the going gets tough or the repetition boring; it's the necessary
process of turning castings into spring steel--flexible, resilient, strong.
Keep up the good work. And thanks to Laura for sparking the discussion. It's
an honest question deserving of as straight an answer as we are capable of
giving.
WT
A teacher once offered an "A" in the course for any student who asked an
intelligent question.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <d...@fuzzo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic
colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business;
having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a
master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two
published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked
for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web
sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science
Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and
the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak
with some authority on how journalists work.
The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories
with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many --
most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to
fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or
reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists
do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a
source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to
rewrite it to suit their interests.
Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't
you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you
should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first?
Dave
On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote:
Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your
refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a
story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make
it out to be.
This has nothing to do with "casting aside independence for accuracy,"
and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it.
If you are going to write sentences that go like this: "According to Dr.
X, such and such is true" there is no way for you to fact check that
except to ask X, "I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you
right?" That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact,
it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it
doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right
doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than
what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion.
Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the
reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to
cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for
approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly
enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that
we don't buy what you are trying to sell.
Hal Caswell
On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote:
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business
spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but
scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been
committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for
influential scientists.
You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need
to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual
basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far
too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time,
scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind
spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than
good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's
understanding.
The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their
independence in the name of, uh, accuracy.
You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit
from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why
don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical
journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show
copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues.
Dave
On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net>
wrote:
I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their
stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the
issue, reducing
error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering
in silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in
an
obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is
where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the
reporter
explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a
pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is
NOT the
point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree
with Dave's point, but it's not my point.
Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad
idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that
it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the
reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a
story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying
the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different
actions in different circumstances.
Jane Shevtsov
----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com>
To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the
general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear
pieces
with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons
accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do
the same
with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose
word I
would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their
approval
of a story I wrote involving them first.
Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very
hard
at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by
running
quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance
copy of a
story with a source (for the implications above). I understand
why -- it
creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill
our
CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an
independent
source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for
approval? We cannot.
I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such
clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my
statement.
There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which
specialist
reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed
from
their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to
support
such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The
coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist
or less
experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the
material
or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed
to
specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity"
targets that
may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that
need to
be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take
our
stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or
to suit
their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a
science
journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories
they've asked
to have their name taken off of the byline).
And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries"
where
I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll
ask a
scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find
himself
seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are
not
"journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could
offer
better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such
programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to
know what
to say.
Dave
On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters
can get
it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they
were
CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in
presuming
that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be
averted
much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the
piece
with the originator of the information/testimony. ...
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date:
03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
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
---------------------------------
Hal Caswell
Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole MA 02543
508-289-2751
hcasw...@whoi.edu
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
