Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This exactly the sort of NYT apologist retort I anticipated. That's why my original post included a whiff of Basic Reporting 101, which, predictably, is missing from your reply. How do you know what the "mining company told family members and others?" Was it broadcast on TV? Did you see actual, talking-head footage? Did that talking head say to the effect of "It has been confirmed that rescuers have reached 12 surviving miners?" If so, I defer to you. I didn't see it. Further, who is a "mining company?" How can a company speak? It speaks through a spokesman. Who is that person? What, exactly, did he say? Report it, wrapped it in quotation marks. And that's just part of why this particular misreporting debacle is so embarrassing. Nobody from the wire service or any other reporting agency took the time CONFIRM a damn thing. Not one damn thing. See the difference? Spreading rumors and miscommunication versus factual, substantiated reporting. Don't settle for sloppy reporting. Demand facts. Get information from numerous sources, whether you're the reporter or the reader. -Chris Lawson -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Matt Powell <wooderson@gmail.com> > On 1/4/06, mcyclwritr@comcast.net <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote: > > Not to klck the Gray Lady while she's down, but I heard that today's NYT > > front > page >trumpeted 12 survivors from the West Virginia mine tragedy. Can you > say > "scoop >hungry?" "Unsubstantiated?" "Reckless?" > > That's what the mining company told family members and others > gathered. Hardly the reporter's fault that he passed along what was > being stated on the scene. > > -- > MP > wooderson@gmail.com