[meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter

From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <637533.37093.qm_at_web30704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly.

I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk
of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have
been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of
damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this.

The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight.

Adam






----- Original Message ----
From: "Matson, Robert D." <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter

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 03:57:25 PM PDT