On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Tony Sidaway
<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/4/30 Elias Friedman
<elipongo(a)gmail.com>om>:
My own "original research" has been
that
journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong.
That's the most we could ask of generalists. Details are far less
important in the scheme of things.
My thought process goes "if they can't get simple details right,
details available on the front page of a Google search, how do I know
the rest of the article is correct?" What else has been
misinterpreted? Exaggerated? Downplayed?
--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
The same problem is true of almost every source you'll ever use. We
can't really hope to be completely accurate - nothing is. Not
newspapers, not books, not journals, nothing. In my office the
journal Nature is the butt of jokes for printing so much wrong
information - this is simply how life is. Reviewed, edited printed
material from respected publishers is often wrong.
WilyD