News coverage

[klr]

...
If you want someone to write a subjective piece, you need a PR person (actually, Richard does too), and not a journalist. Yes, they are the same thing but wear different hats.

Quite. He was our greatest asset in exposing this entire mess to public attention. We probably couldn't have done it without him and his "outrage" piece.

Ohh, totally. If he had never written that the papers would never have had any interest in talking about it, and you would have all been at a loss. A few blog posts would not have got any response from him, I believe. His current PR person should be sacked immediately.

You know, I think there were other benefits as well. His statement so badly misrepresented the situation in "our" eyes that people felt doubly offended, and became even more resolved to set matters right. And he also made some pretty strong claims that were just begging to be exposed. It made it into something that the general public could more readily relate to: Public figure makes strident and emotive claims about X, Y and Z, but these are disputed in detail by others. People love a good public spat, even if the fine detail sometimes escapes them.

[Shrunk]

Sigh. I am not going to explain Journalism 101 to you. My job in this it to try and remove my own opinion from it. No, I was never going to take a side in this. Of course he said something you don't agree with. And my job is to report it, even if it's barmy.

Thanks for the condescension. Obviously (or so I thought), I have no beef with your reporting what Ham says. However, if you really are trying to "remove (your) own opinion from it" and not "take a side", then how do you explain the last sentence in the passage, which consists of your own words:

Again, seems fair to me.

Exactly how is that not "taking a side"?

Plus I will agree that what you posted here does contradict what he told me. And is barmy. So good. Can always do an update.

See, there's this wonderful thing called "the internet" and the subject of your interview, Ken Ham, actually has his own "website" on this "internet," where you can read what he actually says and writes about evolution and those who advocate it. I would have thought you might have checked something like that before you published an article depicting Ham as an aggrieved innocent who is being persecuted by those rude, nasty evolutionists. But maybe they never covered that in Journalism 101.

Hey, this is just like old times on the RD forum! I feel much better now.

[tytalus]

I would have thought that the premise of it being illegal to pray in schools wouldn't pass the smell test, but oh well. I understand many students are driven to prayer on occasion, perhaps prompted by an imminent test or quiz. I can't remember ever doing so myself when I was a xian, but I might have.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Sigh. I am not going to explain Journalism 101 to you. My job in this it to try and remove my own opinion from it. No, I was never going to take a side in this. Of course he said something you don't agree with. And my job is to report it, even if it's barmy...

There's a wonderful quote from Christipher Hitchens where he'stalking about the need for journalists to be objective, and he points out that 'objective' doesn't, and never has, meant the same thing as 'fair-minded', or 'balanced', or 'even handed', or 'giving both sides'. (I can't find the exact quote anywhere, but he's used variants on it on more than one occasion)

There's no reason an 'objective' reporter can't come to the conclusion that one side in a debate is correct.





Oh, and...

[Shrunk]

There's a wonderful quote from Christipher Hitchens where he'stalking about the need for journalists to be objective, and he points out that 'objective' doesn't, and never has, meant the same thing as 'fair-minded', or 'balanced', or 'even handed', or 'giving both sides'. (I can't find the exact quote anywhere, but he's used variants on it on more than one occasion)

There's no reason an 'objective' reporter can't come to the conclusion that one side in a debate is correct.

Excellent point. And the thing is, in most cases, they have no problem doing just that. You never hear a legitimate reporter saying:

"The 9/11 terrorist attacks, which some claim to have been perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, but which may likely have been carried out by the Bush Administration..."

"Elvis Presley, who some believe died in 1977..."

"The supposed Jewish genocide, in which some believe over 6 milllion were killed, although opinion is divided as to whether this actually occurred...."

Yet for some reason, when the topic of science comes up, these same reporters are unable to discern whether the opinion of Suzanne Somers should be given equal weight to the views of the world's cancer researchers, or whether Jenny McCarthy is an expert on the safety of vaccination.

[Alan B]

The note I made on page 9 of this thread about "other public posting areas" was removed from the FUA shortly after I made that comment. Thus it appears that RDF are continually monitoring these fora and making alterations to cover their tracks.

I lied! That "other public posting areas" is still there. I must read more carefully next time. Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking at work here.

[CJ]

Todays RDF figures. The interesting one is Time on site.

[CJ]

Look at the online stats at RDF in particular the guests.



I recognise most of the 30 online so when the forum goes the time on site and hits will drop like a stone.

[ficklefiend]

Look at the online stats at RDF in particular the guests.



I recognise most of the 30 online so when the forum goes the time on site and hits will drop like a stone.

Haha, my hits are only because I've still been using the forum bookmark to get to the front page. I am so lazy.

[CJ]

It won't be long before Bots outnumber members.

[Ayaan]

There have been folks at rationalskeptic.org using the member list at RDF to PM folks to let them know about the new site. So, at least some of those hits are folks logging in to check their PM's.

[RebeccaSmick]

There have been folks at rationalskeptic.org using the member list at RDF to PM folks to let them know about the new site. So, at least some of those hits are folks logging in to check their PM's.

This is exactly why I've been over there, at least, a dozen times in the last few days alone.

[CJ]

It will be sad to see RD.net fall down the rankings and lose so many search terms disappear.

[klr]

... but at least the story has made Private Eye:

RD_PEye.png (156.44 KiB) Viewed 3478 times

[kiki5711]

... but at least the story has made Private Eye:

RD_PEye.png

Kind of feels nice playing god