journalism with integrity
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Bizarrely, the most read article on the Guardian website last week wasn't about Ed Miliband or the Labour party conference, but a quirky special-interest piece spoofing science journalism which I assumed only about three people would get. Apparently I hit a nerve, but why? What's wrong with science journalism? How did it become so dull and predictable?
« previous post | next post » I can understand why Margalit Fox would want to give such prominence to Edwin Newman's two books on usage in her obituary for for the journalist, who died recently at 91. Newman retired from NBC more than 25 years ago, and people who remember him are likely to be hazier on his journalism than on his 1970's bestsellers and , which are still in print (though only in large type and audio editions appropriate to a public of advancing diopter). But I wish they had left me out of it. His prescriptive approach to English did not win favor everywhere. In an article in The Atlantic in 1983, the linguist Geoffrey Nunberg took Mr.
Cellular Therapy and Transplantation is a new international, peer-reviewed, open access journal which publishes articles in the fields of cellular and genetic therapy and transplantation. We welcome original research articles, review articles, and case reports. The major criteria for acceptance and publication of a manuscript are originality, high quality, scientific rigor, and interest to a wide audience of readers. Papers accepted for publication in CTT are made available on this site at no charge to readers (Open Access).
How can journalists make the most of the interviews that they do?
1. The news as cultural artifact Some years ago, while watching the CBS Evening News, I was startled to hear Dan Rather say, "And that's part of our world tonight." Mr. Rather then thanked me for watching, but it was I who wanted to thank him-- for frank acknowledgment of what he and his colleagues actually do. They give us part of the world, a version of it; and there is no scandal in saying that this artifact, the news, is something journalists make, which means it can be made poorly or well.
How bad is mainstream science reporting?
JAY ROSEN is a professor of journalism at New York University and an insightful critic of the media. Earlier this year he wrote an essay on "the actual ideology of our political press", which we praised and discussed on this blog. Mr Rosen has a blog of his own, PressThink , and his work has been published in Columbia Journalism Review , the Chronicle of Higher Education , the New York Times , the Washington Post , and others. He has also written a book, titled " What Are Journalists For?
Somewhere in the offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, there is a file that will be of great interest to any independent inquiry that attempts to tell the truth about the behaviour of the Metropolitan police in the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World . The Guardian has read it. The police were dragged into the centre of the scandal last week when the New York Times quoted unnamed detectives claiming that Scotland Yard's "close relationship" with the News of the World had hampered the inquiry. Essentially, the Met is charged on two counts: first, that it cut short its investigation; second, that it then failed to tell the truth to the press, public and parliament. The police insist that they are innocent on both counts. The unpublished CPS file shows the inquiry started well.
Adam Penenberg. If you call yourself an online journalist, and yet that name doesn’t immediately prompt a nod of recognition – a smile, even – then it’s time to close your laptop and bow your head in shame. Or at least head over to Netflix . It was Adam Penenberg who, back in 1998, first forced traditional journalists to sit up and take online reporting seriously. And he did so with a double whammy : scooping them on a big story – a scandal that went to the heart of one of America’s journalistic institutions – while also exposing a rising star of print journalism as a hack and a liar. The lying hack was New Republic wunderkind Stephen Glass and the story of how Penenberg – then a reporter for ‘Forbes Digital Tool’ (now sadly swallowed by the execrable Forbes.com) – exposed Glass’ fabricated reporting was subsequently made into a movie.
Saturday, 28 August 2010 17:04 Politicians and members of the public have reacted with fury after a BBC Radio 4 broadcast heard commentators describe Scots as living off of benefits provided by the English and describe the Scottish parliament as a “charade of a building” inhabited by MSPs who “crawl out of the darkness”. The comments were made on the radio programme ‘Any Questions’ by Baroness Ruth Deech who is a former Governor of the BBC and Douglas Murray who is the Director of The Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC). The comments have resulted in a stream of complaints to the BBC. The show, broadcast on Friday 20th August, heard Baroness Deech claim that Scots lived off of benefits paid for by English subsidies and that the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi had embarrassed the rest of the UK.