- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,618
- Reaction score
- 1,101
- Location
- Oaxaca, Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
News and science are similar in that the necessary information is there for someone else to verify, or replicate, your research. If "news" does not include that information, frequently included in what's called attribution, then it simply doesn't meet the standard of what would be called news reporting.
An example would be saying what someone said without quotes and with no clue as to when and where and in what context it was said.
Another example would be the global attribution of "scientists agree" or "everyone agrees".
Or, citing statistics with no hint as to where the numbers were obtained.
On these forums, people are quick to rightly demand a source for these sorts of things.
When reading a "news" article, I would suggest you blank out all unattributed claims or quotes and just read what's left. Of course, for some articles and publications this wouldn't leave much.
An example would be saying what someone said without quotes and with no clue as to when and where and in what context it was said.
Another example would be the global attribution of "scientists agree" or "everyone agrees".
Or, citing statistics with no hint as to where the numbers were obtained.
On these forums, people are quick to rightly demand a source for these sorts of things.
When reading a "news" article, I would suggest you blank out all unattributed claims or quotes and just read what's left. Of course, for some articles and publications this wouldn't leave much.