Chrichton was stating something I've been saying for years. When I read an article in the mainstream press (as opposed to specialty publications like Aviation Week) about aviation, space, etc., it's rare to find one that doesn't make at least one factual error.
Some of the errors are comical, like the "semiautomatic revolver" mentioned in a shooting story several years ago written by someone who obviously knows nothing about firearms. This was back when reporters were putting in the word "semiautomatic" in just about every firearms story as part of the demonization de jour. I remember once seeing the phrase "E-2 Hawkeye jet fighter" in a brief article, which may be a record seeing as it contains 3 errors in 4 words.
Since the same editors and "fact checkers" also work on other parts of the paper, how am I supposed to believe they're any more accurate there than they are in the areas I know about? The most likely answer is, they aren't. I'm coming to believe that if I want information about a specialty area, the only acceptable sources are the specialty press or a good blog. They're more likely to have factual information, and especially with a good blog, they're quicker to correct the mistakes they do make.
Space/Science » in reply to News media accuracy
re: News media accuracy
The whole thread (38 posts)
- "Aliens cause global warming" - Michael Chrichton
- re: Rene Descartes
- Proves Getting An MD Requires More Memorization Than Logic.
- re: "Aliens cause global warming" - Michael Chrichton