Comments on: Media distortion of science or sloppy subediting?

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:36:46 +0000

Yes it is, Snoopy. Shoot the subeditors; it’s the only language they understand.

By: SnoopyTheGoon

SnoopyTheGoon — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:47:02 +0000

Is that Baron Cohen in any way related… scrap this question, this is not what I am here about. It looks like that post, as well as the previous one (on the musical graveyard) are somehow related to that discussion of headlines we had ;-)

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:46:13 +0000

Katy – as a writer and editor, you are, like me, a journalistic poacher and gamekeeper.

But what on Earth are you doing writing for Comment is Free? Did they invite you to join their writers’ roster, or did you pitch the piece. Be very careful; CiF will provide you with a wider audience for your writing, but at what cost to your reputation and sanity?

By: Ms Baroque

Ms Baroque — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:40:02 +0000

Well I had a thing in Comment is Free last week about an arrested Egyptian cartoonist – author of a graphic novel – and the subs headlined it “an animated[sic] discussion…” This “distortion” was brought up in the comments thread, but I had shrugged my shoulders.

I really admire Baron-Cohen. He’s a scientist though not a journalist! He’ll have exaggerated ideas about rigour.

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:13:37 +0000

Indeed, Gadj. That is a general criticism, but what we have here is very specific, and it may or may not be “distortion”. That’s the point, and the irony of the situation: Baron-Cohen is ticked off with subeditors, but the headline of his New Scientist article is much broader in its sweep.

By: Gadjo Dilo

Gadjo Dilo — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:16:58 +0000

Interesting. On a pedantic note though, surely journalism (and I’m assuming we’re not discussing Samuel Pepys here) is media, it’s an example of it, and responsible for much distortion.