On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:11:53 -0000, Jim Jarvis wrote:
>I spoke with Ken Brown, the reporter who wrote the WSJ piece,
>yesterday. Although he works in the WSJ's technology section,
>he freely admits he's not technical.
This is a a common problem with the popular press. Their people are
competent ONLY as "writers" and as reporters of events that their
education has made them competent to understand. Few, if any, are
competent to report on issues of a technical nature. The press takes
the position that if they report all views on a topic that they have
been fair and accurate. Never mind that some of those views are
inaccurate or distorted, and that some are technically correct -- the
reporter can't tell the difference, so he/she reports them.
This is how the press releases turn into "scientific breakthroughs,"
and observations of scientic fact that conflict with those releases are
described as the "claims" of a fringe group of technical throwbacks.
You can see this problem in virtually any story where the issues are
largely technical. I work in pro audio, and I see it it the reviews of
the acoustics of performance spaces, and of the sound at public events.
My wife is a scientist working in the development side of the
pharmaceutical industry. She sees it in reporting on that industry, and
even in publications that try very hard to be impartial (like Consumer
Reports).
Until this system is exposed and discredited, we can expect to be the
loser in any public relations game. What we SHOULD be doing is writing
to the editors of these publications and urging them to hire engineers
who are technically competent with respect to these issues, are good
writers, and have the professionalism to treat them in a truly
impartial fashion.
Jim Brown K9YC
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|