There was an interesting editorial in the Tribune today about the "value of healthy skepticism" when reading. For example, it was all over the media that the chimpanzee, Cheetah, who died recently was Tarzan's "ungawa" companion in the early 1930 movies. A chimpanzee being 80 years old is very doubtful.

Here was another example:

quote:

Shane Fitzgerald, a sociology student in Dublin, demonstrated this with an experiment three years ago when Maurice Jarre died. Jarre was a well-known composer who wrote the Academy Award-winning score for "Lawrence of Arabia" and music for other movies including "Dr. Zhivago", "Passage to India," "Ghost" and "Dead Poets Society." In several obituaries a quote was attributed to him: "Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head, that only I can hear."

Nice quote, except Maurice Jarre never said it. Fitzgerald made up the quote, attributed it to Jarre and placed it on Wikipedia. Many newspapers published it in their Jarre obituaries and had to issue retractions once the truth came out.

I know we've talked about Wikipedia before. I guess the point is that no matter what the source, you should check out the information.

I like Google News as a home page because I can see at a glance who published headline article, & who else has stories on the topic. You can adjust the news feed to, for example, leave out entertainment stories and show you everything on technology... I am no different online than 'in person': I trust the NYT, I used to like the WSJ but now compare their articles w/competitors' (since Murdoch bought them); I like the Christian Science Monitor for well-considered unsensational analysis... etc. What the internet is doing for me is making it possible to get familiar with other big papers like the Chic Trib, Wash Post etc. Hmm I guess I'm saying, I still only trust newspapers; I view news from msn,yahoo etc with a big salt grain...

BTW the NYT article noted that several chimps played Cheetah over the years..

I hope I'm not being naive about Wiki: I've been banking on there being enough people eyeballing it that mistakes will get corrected quickly.. Who set everyone straight on the Jarre error, any idea?

quote:

I trust the NYT

Even after their editor asked if Times reporters should ignore outright lies and merely report them as having been said, without comment on the lie itself.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:


BTW the NYT article noted that several chimps played Cheetah over the years..

Indeed. A fully-grown chimp is not likely to be controllable. Only young ones are ever used in movies.

quote:

Who set everyone straight on the Jarre error, any idea?

No idea, but it was a Jarreing revelation! Not be be confused with Gunnar Jarring, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Jarring

I think Wikipedia has gotten an unfair, bad rep over the years. I don't really consider them a news source, though they do have articles on breaking news, these articles are clearly marked as such with a standard disclaimer. What Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia. I find them no more or less reputable than Britannica or World Book or any of the competition. I pretty much use Wikipedia the same way I tended to use my favorite print encyclopedia before the Web and Wikipedia arrived: as a source of other references. One huge advantage that Wikipedia has over its in-print competition is that you have access to the complete history of an article (all the versions going back to when an article was first written). You also have access to the editorial discussion taking place "behind the scenes".

The vandalism that happens on Wikipedia is no worse than what I have seen in print encyclopedias (pages torn out, pictures defaced) in public libraries, except that in Wikipedia's case you can always get the version back from before said vandalism.

Anyway, an news source or reference book needs to be read with a critical eye. One of the skills I see as necessary in these wired days as in days of yore is the critical thinking skills of logic and rhetoric.

I agree with z. Print encyclopaedias are certainly not immune to incorrect information, either. To give one example, a set of volumes called "Arthur Mee's Children's Cyclopedia" - not an academic source, I grant you - gave rise to the urban legend that lemmings commit suicide by throwing themselves over cliffs in large numbers when migrating. Disney then picked it up somehow (and even faked their shots) in White Wilderness. Similarly, printed references get out of date. Some advance in knowledge throws doubt on an earlier-held belief, or a person will die, perhaps. In cases of a celebrity's death, someone is almost certain to update Wikipedia within a few hours (or even minutes).

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

I trust the NYT

Even after their editor asked if Times reporters should ignore outright lies and merely report them as having been said, without comment on the lie itself.

Proof, are you referring to this recent NYT discussion? I like that the NYT has a 'public editor' who brings up this issue, which really reflects how far ALL newspapers have fallen down on the job in recent decades, merely reporting what's said like an RSS feed. At least the Times has fact-check sidebars, but I like most readers would prefer the gutsy old days of direct challenge by reporters.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,

From what I've learned of newspapers in the USA, they've been propaganda vehicles from before this country's founding. Truly impartial reporting has been the exception, not the rule.

From what I've learned of newspapers in the USA, they've been propaganda vehicles from before this country's founding.

I don't have a problem with an editorial bias in news media. (In fact, I'd say it's impossible to have truly objective reporting.) I'd just like the medium to state its POV / editorial bias up front. Sort of like I want political parties to have a written political agenda, instead of simple rhetoric.

I trust the NYT

Sure, it's all a matter of degree. I trust the New York Times more than I trust the Weekly World News. But I agree that "reporting" has pretty much been a casualty of the online news machine: most news media these days just recycle news items and factoids. We've replaced reporters with CCTV cameras.

I was very pleased to receive from Kalleh a Christmas present in the form of the book "Is That A Fish In Your Ear" by David Bellos who is, according to the blurb, the Director of the Program of Translation and Intercultural Communication at Princeton.
The book is all about translation and though it's a little dry in places it's a fascinating read.
The relevant bit to this current topic is Chapter 22 which is all about translating news.

I'd never actually sat and considered the way that we get news from every part of the world hours, or even minutes after it happens. Now I have thought about it I realise that it's remarkable.

Wherever the news happens and whatever the language of the country it arrives in English in my newspapers or on TV with amazing speed. On the internet even faster.
It's obvious that not all the newspapers can employ people who can translate between every other language and English so how does it happen?

Here's a quote from the book.

quote:

News of flooding in Bangladesh or a coup d'etat in Rwanda or Kyrgystan does not come to you from Dhaka, Kigali or Bishkek. It comes to your local news source from the agencies in English, French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Dutch or Arabic. It is rewritten almost instantaneously by journalists working for your local paper or station from whichever language version they receive from one or more of the wires. The global transmission languages are those of the colonial empires of the nineteenth century, plus Arabic. Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Indonesian and all the other languages are not in the game.

The chapter goes on to discuss how the work of rewriting it in English is more than translation. It involves stripping it of its original cultural context and rendering it more appropriate and more palatable for domestic consumption.
As I see it, this will inevitably create a cultural bias, or even an editorial bias, no matter how diligently it is done.

It's really rather a good book if you are interested in the process of translation. I haven't finished it yet but when I do I shall write a review.

So glad you're enjoying it, Bob. I haven't read it yet, but it received an excellent review from the NYT.

quote:

I think Wikipedia has gotten an unfair, bad rep over the years.

You are right, I think, Z. No matter what we read, from the NYT to the WSJ to Wikipedia we must read critically. I also think we must read both sides. That's why I read the WSJ and the NYTs, as well as the Chicago Tribune. While I do think critical reading is essential, I am not as skeptical as Geoff is about reading newspapers.

Just this weekend I learned a big lesson in reading critically. I was reviewing the final galleys of a book chapter I had written. I will admit a lazy mistake I made; I cited a statistic from a very reputable article, which had reported that statistic from a research paper. In other words, I used a secondary source. Shame on me! The publisher asked a completely different question about the primary source so I reread it to answer that question. When I read it, I realized that the secondary source had mixed up the statistics. The statistics were that 18% of adults and 27% of children survive after being resuscitated. The secondary source had mixed up those percentages. I am so relieved I found it, and I learned an important lesson (which I should have learned years ago!).

One thing about Wikipedia versus encyclopedias is that it keeps things interesting.

Those damn Americans! Always butting into everyone's business!

Here is an interesting article that shows how politicians, and others, use words, statistics, etc., to meet their own needs. A great statistical example:

quote:

An online headline declared: "Baggage problems on airlines growing worse," noting that carriers mishandled 23 percent more bags than the year before. True. But the actual numbers: 4.91 per 1,000 in the first year, 6.14 the next. So the airlines lost about one more bag out of every 1,000, a dog-bites-man story at best.

Here is an advertising ploy:

quote:

"The first month free" or "Low introductory price" is a familiar ploy of cable television or long-distance phone providers. But if an extended contract is required, it is irrelevant what the first period rate is. One could advertise "Right shoes only 99 cents" — but if you're in the habit of buying shoes in pairs, the price of a single shoe doesn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
One could advertise "Right shoes only 99 cents" — but if you're in the habit of buying shoes in pairs, the price of a single shoe doesn't matter.

One might argue that shoes that fit are "right shoes," whereas ones that don't are "wrong shoes," thus getting around the gimmick. But, of course, I see your point.

A ploy used a century ago was the "free lunch," which consisted of very salty, cheap food, which made people thirsty, thereby prompting the purchase beer at high prices.

As for my being cynical, I think we all could do with a dose of it! Your reading three newspapers seems a wise way to go, IMHO.

Yep, I agree about being skeptical about what we read (not sure about "cynical") and surely that we shouldn't just read one side of the story or believe all we read.

As for the "free lunch," in a local restaurant there is a huge sign that can be seen from the street that says, "KIDS EAT FREE!!!" When you get in and read the menu, it still says that. However, on the bottom, in small letters it says, "One kid eats free for every $8 spent on food or drink." That's almost illegal to me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Yes, that's often tried on. A couple of minutes ago I received a text message from my phone provider. I deleted it after reading the first couple of lines, but it read something like "We are sorry you didn't take up our offer of free minutes by buying minutes...". They aren't free if you have to buy them!

That reminds me of calls I get every so often on our land line. The message is, "You called recently about lowering your mortgage. I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I think I can help you." Of course none of that is true!