It's not 'malpractice' and it's a mistake to think that what you consider journalism is anything other than a vehicle to sell advertising in the end. There seems to be this assumption that what is written (especially and actually in the NY Times (which I do read and pay for)) is pure and good and the people writing spend untold hours to get the story right and fairly balanced. My anecdote is when I was interviewed a few times in the past by the NYT the writer fed me conclusions and it was very easy to figure out what to say in order to get my name printed. (A contrary position to the point and stated vehemently was almost certainly the way to go..)
You’re talking about what is. I’m talking about what should be. It’s not somehow ok to harm people in the pursuit of advertising money just because it’s the norm.
What about journalism to you means it should have some kind of a higher calling? The people working in that industry have jobs and families to feed. If they simply did the right thing they wouldn't be employed very long if their competitors didn't follow the same path.
When 'journalists' write either left leaning or right leaning pieces are they being circumspect and covering all angles with fairness? Or are they just making sure they have food on the table and/or ensuring that readers continue to patronize the paper (or broadcast) that they work for?
It's nice to think that someone else who has to earn a living and feed their family should be 'above it all' but in reality that is never going to be the case.
Maybe a better idea is to teach children in school over and over that what you read and what is reality are two different things. Don't believe what you read.
You could write almost the same thing about doctors, yet we have no problem using the term “malpractice” with them, to the point that it’s just assumed you mean medical malpractice if you don’t qualify the word.
Doctors take an oath and it is very clear what they are expected to do. (Some of them stray of course but it is atypical). Additionally 'Physicians' (if that is what you mean by 'Doctors') are a more homogeneous and generally trustworthy group than 'journalists'.
This piece while interesting does not seem to differentiate mainstream articles vs highly specialized fields when it compares both in terms of accuracy.
I would bet it's not only profitability but also ROI that dictates how long a paper can part with a journalist for his investigation in a story before it becomes too much time in the eyes of management; the highly comprehensive piece does not bring that many more readers and possibly even less if the topic at hand is very specific.
As well politics on the other hand are dealt with on a daily basis and accuracy can more easily be measured even by the mainstream reader unlike a highly specialized field.
True, but in this case the information the newspaper got from the "expert in the field" source is also flawed. So I guess it's different than the normal case where the journalists get it wrong, but the end result is the same and the rule of thumb remains: whether the topic is dentistry, politics, or something else, don't be too sure that the "facts" you're reading in the paper are actually facts.
It's not 'malpractice' and it's a mistake to think that what you consider journalism is anything other than a vehicle to sell advertising in the end. There seems to be this assumption that what is written (especially and actually in the NY Times (which I do read and pay for)) is pure and good and the people writing spend untold hours to get the story right and fairly balanced. My anecdote is when I was interviewed a few times in the past by the NYT the writer fed me conclusions and it was very easy to figure out what to say in order to get my name printed. (A contrary position to the point and stated vehemently was almost certainly the way to go..)