Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I did not actually submit one essay;
I actually submitted three...
... just for this one award!
I actually submitted more than three times for [indistinct]
Uh t... mar...
I submitted three works;
First one was "Dust Bunnies and Wolves for Environmental Reporters"
Second one is: "Imbalance from Objectivity"
and if you're curious
from the title, about
... what those are about,
Too bad!
I don't have time to read them.
This third one is entitled:
"When the Press Squashes Skepticism"
I'll be starting from the middle
but what this essay is about
is about, um,
a news article that I just found
It is titled:
"New Study Blasts FDA..."
"... for Allowing Human Testing..."
"... of Risky Artificial Blood"
Now, I...
it is by Joseph Rhee
from ABC's Investigative Team, and...
well,
how about I just read in the middle?
Journalists need to understand
that many journal articles
are NOT for immediate public consumption,
but for other experts to verify.
Since scientists do not write for a general audience
it is not their job to provide
all the years of education needed
to understand their results.
This means that reporters should
always seek outside expert opinion
in order to get the full picture because
there may be uncontrolled factors
of which reporters --
and even the researchers themselves
-- are unaware.
Although journalists have the pressure
of beating competing news media,
the push for the news peg
can bypass the important process
of peer-review in science.
Without independent verification,
there is no defense
from the danger of mass misinformation.
While the greatest scandals
make the best news
they also deserve the most caution
before reporting.
The article, which this essay discusses,
is one example where the rush to the press
had pushed aside healthy skepticism.
There are no outside perspectives in this article;
the only perspectives that are not
from those involved with the study
are from the sides being scandalized --
the FDA and the makers of the pol...
of artificial blood like Polyheme.
Without an outside perspective,
there is no neutral expert to act
as a guide for the average reader --
not to mention the journalist himself.
[End of subtitles. (Sorry, no time to finish)]