|
What I'm saying is that the quality of these journalism schools is empirically denied. If you'd care to correct me with facts rather than with a sharply worded rhetorical question with the word "next!" at the end, I might take you seriously. I point out, correctly I think, that the journalists that most people read, and that are at more or less the top of their profession, are sadly lacking in the ability to critically examine claims made by people and "experts."
It's an inherent problem that experts disagree on matters, and that there's no accepted way to determine what the truth actually is when that happens. That's a reality that journalists have to work with. It's also something that is only partly true. In academia, there's an accepted peer-review process, and some ideas about how things are are accepted, and others are not. This process takes time, and when stories are breaking, it's hard for journalists to get out in front of the story with good facts. However, it's also important that journalists get it right the first time.
I give a specific example. The president put out a budget that projects things that no serious and non-partisan economist takes seriously. It should come as no surprise that the projected employment numbers were revised downward shortly after the budget was released. However, the fact that the politicians in this country can say false things and be quoted saying them with no indication of their untruth is a sad reality indeed.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
|