I tend to disparage the idea of political correctness when used as an insult, since many of the ideas so labeled are intellectually worthwhile and not simply attempts to inculcate a value-system through brute force. But that is precisely what this incredibly sophomoric op-ed posing as a scientific review does.

Is this what the internet has become? You just toss out HUGE assertions, declare them to be the consensus of the scientific community, and then include a link to Sandy Szwarc's blog?

I'm glad there's NO SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION between a human's environment, their upbringing, their past and present dietary habits, their past and present exercise habits, and their weight and bodily appearance. Is this person on crack?

It's just your genes. I guess this makes the fat people of the world feel better about themselves, but it certainly makes for lazy science reporting.

Hey, this just in: if you eat junk food all day and never exercise, you'll be just as healthy and fit as if you ate well-balanced meals and got lots of exercise.

Don't believe me? I have proof! Follow my link to this blog--

(blog link followed)

SCIENCE BLOG

Well some people incorrectly think that if you eat junk food all day and never exercise, you'll be disgustingly unhealthy. But that's just not true. In fact, you'll be just as healthy and fit as if you ate well-balanced meals and got lots of exercise. Glad to clear that up for you.

As a print journalist, I worry about blogging. Even though I blog for one site.

No one has to have credentials anymore, and the Internet has made it possible to discard many of the traditional journalism rules relating to ethics and writing structure. Yet it's still seeming to slowly drive us out of business.

Do you use spell check on your blog?

meredithc32:

"No one has to have credentials anymore, and the Internet has made it possible to discard many of the traditional journalism rules relating to ethics and writing structure. Yet it's still seeming to slowly drive us out of business."

Which credentials maintained journalistic ethics prior to the rise of blogs? So-called "journalists" today rarely show indications of morality, much less ethics. By my estimation, journalism has been driving itself out of business for a few decades now; the Internet has only helped.

You speak about ALL journalists when you're really only subjected to a very small percentage of the really famous ones on tv and in print.

Lots of us work for small magazines and weekly newspapers, and there are far more of us than the top-teir ones with whom you are familiar.

As far as ethics, I'm speaking of the whole "back up your statements with evidence" thing. We were taught to do that in journalism school by speaking through others. Bias doesn't indicate poor ethical judgment. Many publications work on a bias because that's what their readers want. Poor ethical judgment is in play when you make a statement and don't back it up with evidence from someone who is qualified to make a comment about it.

Bloggers routinely make statements and don't supply evidence to back it up.

And by credentials I mean a four-year degree indicating you spent the last four years learning about journalism. I'm currently working on my master's in the field and while I'll never be famous, at least I'll be educated in what I'm doing.

Would you want a mechanic operating on your heart? I think not.

Screwjack: good one. I noticed it too but sometimes people are in the heat of the moment, emotional and hit the wrong key without realizing it.

Though when I do that I usually go back and publicly correct myself. At least when I realize I've done it!

meredithc32:

And by credentials I mean a four-year degree indicating you spent the last four years learning about journalism. I'm currently working on my master's in the field and while I'll never be famous, at least I'll be educated in what I'm doing.

Would you want a mechanic operating on your heart? I think not.

Would those be like the "well qualified" journalists at the NYT or WaPo who swallowed the Bush rationale for war with Iraq uncritically - indeed, who themselves engaged in the drumbeat for war - and who later had to apologize for said "reporting?"

Journalism's in trouble not because of bloggers. The "MSM" is in trouble because it's become the inside the beltway corporate lapdog stenographer mouthpiece party organ for this administration in particular but for Washington in general. Blogs have been on the rise because people are hungry for something besides the pre-digested pap being served via the "infotainment" "outlets" that news has become.

We now return to the regularly scheduled topic.

Meredith: The field of journalism has been tainted by unprofessionalism for a long time. You're merely contributing to a fine tradition of discredited hucksterism. Your profession ("print journalism," as if the method of production connotes any inherent standard of accuracy) is losing readership because a significant number of your coevals suck at telling a story straight. Jayson Blair probably disdained bloggers, too. Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that your degree means you're "qualified to comment;" nobody believes that crap. The faint whiff of superiority that comes from you and your type is entirely justified. Now, go eat your Ramen and live in your shoebox apartment and keep polishing that self-congratulation.

meredithc32:

As a print journalist, I worry about blogging. Even though I blog for one site.

No one has to have credentials anymore, and the Internet has made it possible to discard many of the traditional journalism rules relating to ethics and writing structure. Yet it's still seeming to slowly drive us out of business.

The Internet is to blame for this? I don't know about that at all. Cable news hardly follows ethical standards either. Whatever medium you work in, it's all about splash. Standards are passé.

I of course don't mean to generalize across ALL journalists. However, the most prominent are hardly journalists at all. These journalists-in-name-only, like it or not, represent your profession.

If j-schools produce people like Michael Gordon, Stephen Glass, and Bill O'Reilly (as well as potentially the author of this poorly-written piece), I'm not entirely convinced of the value of journalism education in terms of producing quality journalists.

Besides, there are loads of excellent journalists AND bloggers that have no "formal" training in journalism.

Given the leaders of the journalistic profession (NYT, CNN, Fox) have become lazy, unethical, and mired in conflicts-of-interest, I'd say it's an entirely good thing that the Internet has a chance to beat back those harbingers of stenography. As far as smaller/local publications go, there will always be a floor market for that sort of journalism.

Also, re: this:

"Would you want a mechanic operating on your heart? I think not."

Correct. However, if you'd truly like to conflate journalism with heart surgery, I'd rather have the mechanic operating on my heart than a so-called professional who is either lazy, a liar, or both.