fkrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole thread is another example of reporter
> bashing by people who know very little about the
> news business.
>
> 1. Reporters must cover a variety of stories. They
> cannot be experts in everything. A reporter may
> cover a story about a new medical discovery, a
> politician running for local office, a fire, and a
> trasportation story all in the same day.


I'll agree that the quality of what's being put in print is suffering because budget cuts have trimmed staff and the remaining people are having more work heaped on them. It's a race to the bottom, though, and shoddy and inaccurate reporting causes people to become disgusted and cancel their subscriptions.

> 2. Reporters are on deadline. The story must be
> submitted on time. This allows very little time
> for fact checking.

So, these "excuses" that you're presenting are, more or less, giving a reporter free rein to churn out anything, regardless of how inaccurate it is. At what point does it reach the realm of absurdity? If I ran a newspaper, I'd prefer to deliver "quality" (i.e., accurate reporting with facts checked) over "quantity" (something that's highly inaccurate but met the deadline).

This is what happens when nothing is fact-checked and and the only concern is meeting a deadline or getting something put on the air as quickly as possible:

[www.use.com]

>Reporters do the best they can to be accurate but sometimes their sources are not
> correct.

So that means they should look at everything with an aire of skepticism and check facts to make sure inaccurate information doesn't end up in print or a bogus name like "Dixie Normus" doesn't get broadcast on the air. It's known as accountability and putting out a quality product instead if being satisfied with, and expecting everyone to accept, shoddy worksmanship.

> 3. Reporters do NOT write headlines for their
> stories. Editors write them. Editors cannot be
> experts on everything. For example, the reporter
> might have written "lighter railroad schedules in
> China may......"

Now why would the reporter write THAT? That makes absolutely no sense.

>Do you really
> expect everyone to understand "light rail" the
> same way we do?

Well, the only way we can expect them to is to have it appear in print under its proper usage. If a reporter throws out garbage, the readers or viewers will carry-on with that garbage.

The other day I picked my kid up at school and I walked in on the teacher asking the students what the capitals were of various states. One kid said the capital of New York was New York City. AND THE TEACHER SAID, "THAT'S RIGHT." I had to correct the teacher, and she almost copped an attitude, I guess because I embarrassed her in front of her students. Never mind the fact that she was teaching the kids incorrect stuff.

>Over the years I have seen many
> more much worse examples of headlines that don't
> fit the story.

Well, we shouldn't try to excuse and accept shoddy journalism. Plain and simple. We need to call them on it, and expect them to print a correction. They need to be held accountable

>Been there. Done that. So how 'bout cutting reporter some slack.

No. Good reporters get Pulitzer Prizes. Lousy reporters should not have excuses made for them when they're churning out an inaccurate, lousy product. What you're advocating (the acceptance of mediocrity) is one of the biggest problems with our society today.

Cut the airline pilot some slack when he forgets to check the fuel gauge and the plane falls out of the sky.

Cut the surgeon some slack when he leaves a sponge in the patient.

Wecome to the New Millenium. Yuck.