On Wednesday, 22 September, Reuters published an article called “J&J to Congress: Motrin buyback was legal, FDA knew”, which quotes J&J’s lawyers as claiming that the FDA had given them the permission to go ahead with the “phantom recalls” – like I wrote about in my article. I tried to look up an article in The New York Times about it, since it was one of the newspapers which had covered the majority of the recalls, but the most recent article I could find was about Colleen Goggin’s retirement. This makes me wonder whether or not a publication has the obligation to update their information even if it isn’t deemed news worthy. For example, if J&J is accused of an illegal recall, it’s seen as controversial and therefore quickly makes the news. However, if J&J is to be proven innocent after the hearing on 30 September, I wonder how quickly this information would make the news or if in some cases it would even make the news at all, since it’s a less interesting read when someone is proven innocent than when someone is proven guilty of a crime. This makes me wonder if a newspaper’s commitment to updating their stories applies only if the story becomes more news worthy. If however, the controversy and conflict which everyone had originally anticipated results in nothing more than the innocent and mundane, does a newspaper have to print a story about it anyway for the purpose of continuity and to update facts?
Recently, on the BBC World News website, there have been several articles regarding the upcoming Commonwealth Games which are to be held in Delhi India , showing living standards as far below those of the Western World and even quoting the Australian Olympic Committee as saying “The games shouldn’t have been awarded to Delhi
Robert Mackey’s latest post “Obama Calls Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 Comments ‘Inexcusable’”on The Lede shows a similar transparency. Covering President Obama’s response to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s claim that the attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by the US
On a side note, Mackey’s neutral headline contrasts with the link on The Guardian’s homepage which states “Obama attacks Ahmadinejad claims” – a use of language which I think is perhaps a little too strong after watching the video myself. However, after clicking on the link, the headline states “Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 comments offensive and hateful, says Obama”. Knowing that news websites keep a record of how many views a particular article gets, I wonder if, like bloggers, journalists compete on how many views their articles received and are therefore allowed to make the links to their articles more sensationalized to attract viewers to click on them.
In BBC regional news, an article called “‘Sick prank’ leaves cat dyed pick in Swindon ” makes headlines, although the cat is described as “in good health”. This leads me to wonder, who really cares and why is this news worthy? The only answer I can think of is that a recent, popular case of a woman in Coventry
Really good, thoughtful comments, here, Julian. I like the questions your asking about ethical behavior of papers, ie, following up on stories even if they're scandalous, and about what makes something news, ie the cats. (how funny.) I also really appreciate you noticing the difference between the way the guardian and the times covered obama's comments. it's interesting isn't it to see how different outlets have different takes on the same piece of news. One question: would you really say the role of hte journalist is obsolete? didn't mackey have to put together that post? Just something to think about. Keep up the good work! A-
ReplyDelete