|
| In article <Xns957A6DC975F4DDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
> Obviously, then, the journalists who quoted Capriati and Pierce may have
> had an implied agenda, namely to be objective and informative. If someone
> asks me what I think, and I tell them, and then they say that I said
> something else, I would wonder about their agenda.
Yes, that is called spin and it happens all the time. Hardly ever is it
framed as spin, however.
>
> Fortunately, the worse think that could happen if somebody reads one of
> those articles is that they actually do more research before having an
> elective procedure. Right?
Unfortunately, that is not always the case. What is quoted in an
article is often as important as what has been left out. There have
been numerous examples of that on this NG. I don't believe that any
article, even one in a newspaper, is ever purely objective and factual.
The danger is that people do take news articles at their face value if
it resonates with their preconceived notions and will not pursue further
research.
Again, that link about Pierce is very revealing. Yes, the journalist
writes facts, ie. Pierce is having night vision problems; Pierce has had
LASIK. It is the way in which it is written that implies a connection
between the two events. No where is that overtly stated. It is what the
journalist chooses to reveal.
The article could have just as easily left out the fact that Pierce had
LASIK surgery--because in that article the journalist chooses to quote
Pierce as saying she was slow and had trouble focusing on the ball. She
may not have said anything about LASIK to the reporter, so the
journalist made sure to add that tidbit as a descriptive clause, not a
quote.
It really is similar to a case Minarik had and has talked about
publicly. A woman came to see him complaining of some eye problems.
She had had LASIK, and being anti-LASIK he immediately assumed the two
conditions were linked. It turned out that she was suffering from MS
symptoms. He didn't think to search beyond his assumptions.
To continue to play the role of devil's advocate: Couldn't it be just as
likely, but would take more work, to read the Pierce article as: Pierce
is having night vision problems; Pierce has had LASIK; Pierce has had
allergy related conjuctivitis because the pollen has been especially bad
this year. That last fact was left out by the reporter. Remember--she
had not seen a doctor yet when this article was written. That fact was
in there to at least cast some doubt on the conclusion the reporter most
likely wanted the reader to draw. If the reporter had left out the fact
that Pierce had had LASIK, the reader would not be able to draw any
conclusion, especially since she had not seen an eye doctor yet.
So, to answer your question above there is a danger--people who have a
preconceived notion or bias are NOT likely to do more
research--especially when an article "appears" objective and balanced.
They are more likely to jump to conclusions because 2 "facts" are listed
next to each other.
It happens all the time on this NG. One way is to write a subject line
that has very little to do with the content of the post.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
|
|