Jill, perhaps the reporters ought to investigate and report, rather than giving on-the-fly interpretations of complex ideas, while employing their own limited skill set. Many started talking -- inaccurately -- before receiving any input whatsoever from scientists, bioethicists, etc. I understand Dan Rather even said to the effect it's too complex for TV to cover and explain. That bowled me over.
As to the NY Times, well, we all know in advance where they will come down on just about everything, don't we? <vbg> They hardly need even print their views. Many media people have admitted to entering the field, "to change the world." That is not what the media should be doing, in my view, at least not as advocates. I would prefer that they "inform the world" so we can make informed decisions. Those who go beyond that outside of the editorial pages are shortchanging us and misrepresenting their role, placing their own values and agendas ahead of providing unbiased factual information.
The same goes for financial reporting and the likes of, e.g. CNBC. |
