Re: Medis bias

[Michael, G., Stabin]

> a reporter .... claims that he is not supposed to determine "the truth"

> nor is he qualified to.  He also notes that his job is to report what

> people say on the various sides of an issue.



This is a very reasonable position. As long as there is enough reporting of

information claimed by people on all sides of important issues, the "truth"

will probably become apparent in the *long run*. This applies at least to

objective truths. People's reputations can be unfairly tarnished

permanently, by whatever perception was left at the end of a conflict, and

this perception may linger. But obvious falsehoods, especially in science

(like spontaneous generation theory, cold fusion, and the like) will

eventually be resolved in the correct way, and what reporter is really

qualified in the heat of the moment to discern what is correct?



I think, however, that the "story of the day" can be distinguished from

"investigative reporting", in which a reporter or team of reporters makes a

mission out of finding out the "truth" about something, and does far more

than report what people say. They report what they (the reporters, or the

editors) believe. Many journalists today are enamored of the Woodward and

Bernstein model of reporting, because it wins Pulitzer prizes and leads to

better jobs at bigger news organizations. I remember one of the editors of

the Oak Ridge city paper, who I respected a lot, was a believer that

effective day-to-day reporting, "drumbeat reporting" about the labs on the

Oak Ridge reservation, would remove the need for journalists as bird dog

investigators. His idea was to just keep people accountable through routine

reporting, most of which is boring, boring, stuff just happening, but which

eliminated the need for the mentality of "going after" people or industries

at points in time.



> The only recourse seems to be to make your quotes more believable than

their quotes.



Or more "newsworthy", whatever that means. What passes for "news", is just

that which sells today (like shark attacks in the summer of 2001 that were

no more prevalent, actually less so, than in 2000, Clinton's bimbo

eruptions, Bush Sr.'s hate for broccoli). It has little to do with truth,

either, it's more related to the public's passing appetites and whims. The

constant mystery to me is why huge chemical spills that evacuate communities

and cause real deaths and hospitalizations are not very newsworthy, but any

minor incident involving something involving radiation is. Sure, the former

get mentioned, but quickly, and not with the level of emotion and panic

associated with a box of radioactive tools spilling on the highway.



Mike





Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Vanderbilt University

1161 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37232-2675

Phone (615) 343-0068

Fax   (615) 322-3764

Pager (615) 835-5153

e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/