Quote:
Originally Posted by Rog
Heh! this is daily mail-esque, just look at the guy's sponsors for god's sake, he was never going to come to any other conclusion. 'Journalism' at its worst.
|
there was an interesting discussion on radio 4 about journalistic standards, think it may have been around the time of Bliar's 'feral beast' attack on the media.
anyway one the guests made an interesting point that a lot of the papers these days include articles written about various supposedly scientific studies, which in reality are paid for by clients who want the evidence looked at in such a way that the conclusion supports the the idea/product they want to promote. Dressing the idea up as "fact" supported by scientific evidence he argued was just trying to blind people by science. when in reality virtually all these studies would fail any critical assessment of the methods used. His biggest issue was the journalists who reported on such stories and just reported the study as scientific fact when they'd done no back-up research on it. He even went as far as to claim this lack of back-up research by the journalists he felt was in some cases deliberate because the articles in the main were along the same lines as the papers/editors/OWNERS poltical/social ideals.
This single parent study from the US is just the same bunk-um, without reading it in detail i would pretty much guarantee its full of sweeping generalisations which invalidate its findings.