Journalistic standards (was Re: [LINK] Open source just as insecure as Windows)

[Michael Baczynski]

Dear LINKers,

I'm with Rachel here. I think that the issue here is not whether a 
journalist/reporter is necessarily expert at a given field, but that 
they put enough effort into their research for a particular piece to 
ensure that they are not simply reproducing spin from a media release 
or swallowing a very subjective perspective of an individual with a 
barrow to push. Let's face it, if the media (and what is the 
collective noun for journalists?) were fully maintaining professional 
standards, then there would not be any need for a program like Media 
Watch. Media Watch's niche is specifically related to exposing sloppy 
journalism/reporting: In essence, it is a form of peer review process 
for the industry and, despite the perennial accusations of bias 
(what's the phrase: Everybody loves it until they're on it"?), it 
usually does a good job of exposing the fact that journalistic 
sloppiness affects all subject areas, not just "technical" issues.

A difficulty arises in relation to stories concerning technology or 
science when neither the journalist nor the audience have enough 
technical knowledge to determine whether a piece of information is 
fact, opinion or lunacy. It is not enough to say that a piece is 
there to provoke a response or air an "interesting" opinion, 
particularly if it is to be presented to a general audience with 
limited technical knowledge. For those with little expertise in an 
area, the assumption is that what is reported IS fact. This issue is 
the fulcrum of professional responsibility - if you present material 
under the assumption that it is fact, then you should attempt 
everything and anything to ensure that (a) it is factual; and (b) the 
reader can quickly distinguish fact from opinion. Also, as Rachel 
points out, an audience with technical expertise are very quick to 
become annoyed with sloppy journalism. It's not that you have to be 
an "expert" in all areas, merely do enough leg work to ensure that 
you won't be taken to task by the experts who might see your work. In 
essence, willful ignorance is not a virtue that should sit well with 
either journalists or "old fashioned" reporters: Everyone loses out. 
</arrrgh ... here endeth the rant>

Cheers

M.

>I don't think journalists need to be absolute experts in every aspect of IT,
>but they do need to have good bullshit detectors and some ability to absorb
>verbose technical information and convert it to either solid facts 
>or reduce it
>to an executive summary for a less technically minded audience. 
>The exact same
>skills apply to the best IT managers too.
>
>Don't forget that a lot of people reading these IT articles *are*
>in the industry and can comprehend far more than just oversimplified non-facts
>and will, as recently observed get quite upset at being patronised.
>
>Time for the Unis to produce a "technical writing" module in their journalism
>degree.
>
>
>rachel
>
>--
>Rachel Polanskis                 Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia
>grove@zeta.org.au                http://www.zeta.org.au/~grove/grove.html
>       "People don't say sorry in this country" - Max Connors (Seachange)

-- 
___________________
Michael Baczynski
School of Politics and Public Policy
Griffith University

(p) +61 7 3875 7738
(f) +61 7 3875 7737
(m) +61 4 1144 2081