[meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter

From: Meteorites USA <eric_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:52:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4DA4AD60.3090902_at_meteoritesusa.com>

A novel idea would be to publish what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Seems a
simple fix to me.

Since rebuttals are getting chopped up, sliced and diced, and edited
until they no longer convey the originally intended message, or worse
gets turned into a message which might reinforce NYT's own stance,
perhaps the NYT should publish "Unedited" rebuttals. Thereby keeping the
purity of the letters, and journalism. Simply limit the number of words
to say 250 or 500, and set some basic ground rules. Be professional, no
profanity, verifiable facts, etc.

This would of course require extra time and effort and perhaps research
and fact checking on the NYT's part though. ;)

Regards,
Eric


On 4/12/2011 12:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that
> they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at
> best,
> misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited
> version:
>
> "As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32
> specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered
> in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens
> recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s?
> Just four."
>
> Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted:
>
> " ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and
> others,
> 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as
> well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts
> since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not
> one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis
> mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only
> four such specimens."
>
> This significant error of omission invites researchers "in-the-know" to
> accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling
> into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the
> problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they
> don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless
> removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not
> like prose: every word is usually there for a reason.
>
> --Rob
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Tue 12 Apr 2011 03:52:00 PM PDT