I think you’ve got it. The people who should be showing her the ropes are the ones who’ve been fired so they can hire five useless, underpaid j-school gits in their place.
Not at all. She’s in her 30s and has been with the paper for at least a few years. She’s apparently not a wet-behind-the-ears cub reporter, although I stand by what I said earlier that anyone entering journalism should know some basics. Even if there are staff cuts it doesn’t explain why an editor didn’t kill the story. It looks like she’s an entertainment writer who doesn’t know much of anything about reporting hard news. That’s the problem.
Her contact information is listed at the bottom of the “article.” You should let her know how you feel.
Reporters are the stupidest idiots to ever walk the earth. Has their ever been one, even a dedicated science reporter, who was remotely qualified?
No, never ever. That’s why nobody knows anything about science. Not even scientists. :rolleyes:
I’m not sure what your point is. Scientists don’t learn science from the newspaper.
For science writing, I’ve yet to be disappointed by the Economist.
You know, I’ve always liked The Economist. I don’t remember if I’ve read any science articles in it, though. I’ll have to check some out.
He didn’t say he’d *read *it, just that he was never *disappointed *by it.
Well, they do call economics “the dismal science”. Tough to be disappointed if you know that going in, right?
If a reporter is going to attempt to cover a technically demanding area, said reporter should at least invest in some sort of short course of study in said area. A number of universities with medical schools host mini-medical schools, designed to immerse non-medical people in medical issues.
Then again, if you’re pulling the shit as posted in the OP, said “reporter” needs a stint in mini-journalism school.
And I didn’t mean the content was good either – for science writing, the Economist is the best thing to use as backing to write on.
Every week it has a few-page “Science & Technology” section. I find it regularly scoops the daily papers and wider media about upcoming stories (surprising for a weekly), and holds its subjects to the same depth and journalistic standards as the rest of its content. There is also the quarterly technology survey and a host of interim articles in other sections when science/tech spills over to general news coverage.
Really? I took Journalism classes in college and my Prof would have flayed me alive if I tried to submit garbage like this piece. Everyone who left those classes knew better then to do a one-sided, unresearched article. If 90% of new reporters don’t have that ability that is a sad commentary on the media today, but it really would explain a lot.
I moved to South Jersey (Cherry Hill, Fox Hollow) in '77. After one year subscription, we didn’t renew. The Courier Post is only good for coupons and little league. Even its movie listings are sparse and incorrect. Pay no attention.