In defense of journalists

[Dave Wilton]

My conclusion after watching tales of "Windy City" and other tales promulgated
by newspapers is that journalism is not designed to report facts.

Journalism reports on events, not facts. Journalists almost never conduct
research themselves, they simply ask "experts" to tell them what the facts
are--when was the last time you saw a newspaper article that did not contain at
least one quote? Journalists are good at determining what went on in a White
House policy meeting or happened at a crime scene, for example, because witness
testimony is the only source of information for such events. But for
information on empirically derived facts, they are only as good as their
source. For every Jesse Sheidlower or Fred Shapiro, there are a dozen yahoos
who don't know what they are talking about. Arguments from authority are
recognized as one of the fallacies of logic and debate, yet that is all that
newspapers ever do.

Add to this that almost no newspaper ever issues a correction for errors of
fact. They only correct misquotations and misidentifications. So, Fred Shapiro
can expect the Times will issue a correction if he complains, but Barry Popik
can yell until he is blue in the face and the paper will never correct a story
about "Windy City."

Because of the above, newspapers and journalists are appallingly bad sources of
information. They are rife with errors. In the case of reporting on events,
newspapers are usually the best we've got. But for general knowledge, they are
abyssmally bad.

As to the misidentification of Fred Shapiro in the Times, this is inexcusable.
But I reserve judgement on the reporter until I know the track record. Everyone
makes the occasional appallingly bad error. It is the frequency that is
important.

--
Dave Wilton
dave at wilton.net
http://www.wilton.net/dave.htm