Why we need editors who challenge copy:
Poynter writes about the pregnant girls of Gloucester and how the story suddenly became huge based on a Time magazine story with some very thin sourcing--one person, with lots of other stuff cobbled together in a way that gave, on a very superficial read, more credence. But not if you were paying any attention at all to what was really being written.
From Time:
By last week, the number of pregnancies in the high school was up to 17. And Time magazine posted an online version of the story headlined "Pregnancy Pact at Gloucester High." The online story has since been modified with the word "boom" replacing the word "pact" in the headline.
Hello? Doesn't deciding it's a "boom" rather than a "pact" kind of undermine the whole #%^%^ story, the very point that got everyone #*@&! excited? (Sorry, I was having a George Carlin moment. RIP.) On a different forum, as commenters were getting exercised about the meaning of Gloucester's pregnancy boom, I warned about this story because of its weak sourcing. Is anyone else surprised by how this story is turning out? Did anyone have any luck toning down or keeping this story out of their paper?
No comments:
Post a Comment