Repeat: We do not have to run dumb surveys
Here’s a thought for the new year: Let’s give up publishing articles about stupid and unsound surveys.
Go over to HeadsUp and watch as fev methodically anatomizes a fatuous article about how dishonest teenagers have become. (Those damn kids!) It turns out, you’ll be surprised, that the survey on which the article is based is of questionable reliability and that the article credulously repeats and amplifies the conclusions. (Mr. Barnum’s maxim lives! This way to the egress!)
If your publication gave any credence to this thing, for shame. And if you had an opportunity to question it and object to its publication, doubly shamed. Those of you who function as editors ought not to bow reverently at “experts say” or “studies” from the Munchausen Institute for Simulated Validity or “verification” by the holder of the Ferdinand Waldo Demara Chair of Advanced Mendacity at the Piltdown Academy. Part of the reason you collect wages is to be skeptical, not credulous.
Also, while there may still be time, do whatever is necessary — interpose your person if you must — to prevent your publication from running that asinine annual feature on how much it would cost today to duplicate the gifts enumerated in “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”
If print journalism is indeed shipping water and starting to heel over, let’s at least go down while publishing something worth reading.
Comments
You can use surveys to prove any point, John.
47% of people know that.
Posted by: bryanintimonium | December 2, 2008 10:03 AM
The question we all need to be asking, when reading "Study" findings is, "Who paid for the study?"
Posted by: Eve | December 2, 2008 10:20 AM
I saw those data in yesterday's Sun and thought they looked familiar. Now I know why. Thanks for pointing out the analysis at HeadsUp.
Studies and statistics are hard enough for me to pick through, so I can only respect the challenge faced by the copy desk in critiquing them and reporters' challenge in reporting on them. "Who paid for the study?" is always a good question to ask, though how much that biases results is occasionally tricky to parse out. If I see a study, my question is usually, "What does the abstract say?" It takes three minutes to find out, and nine times out of ten tells me whether a.) the reporter read or at least understands the study, b.) the data match the claims, or c.) the study design is sound enough to be worth my time. You'd be surprised how often any one of those is answered in the negative. Or maybe not.
Posted by: Abigail Carlson | December 2, 2008 3:37 PM
Your points about credulous journalists are good ones, of course, but I cannot imagine why you'd want to pick on our feathered friends.
Egrets are lovely, graceful birds, and the female especially so; why you or this "Mr. Barnum" would want to use them as the butt of some kind of obscure joke is beyond me.
All I can imagine is that you're somehow threatened by the egrets' evolutionary success and growing population. After all, I've heard that there's one born every minute.
Thank you.
Posted by: Mark Dodge Medlin | December 2, 2008 10:39 PM
"Egrets". Heh. People who don't read carefully are funny.
Didn't the Sun already run the "12 Days of Christmas" article on December 1? Stuff is falling through the cracks.
Posted by: Claude | December 3, 2008 11:03 AM
As Edith Piaf sang, "no, no egrets ..."
I was reading somewhere that a sharp rise in the price of swans a-swimming is making Christmas more expensive this year ...
Posted by: Terry Collmann | December 3, 2008 6:00 PM
Heh. I figured my Barnum allusion would properly convey my wink. Not to everybody, I guess. I almost wish now that I hadn't commented. As Frankie sang, "Egrets, I've had a few ..."
Posted by: Mark Dodge Medlin | December 3, 2008 11:37 PM
For what it's worth, I thought the egrets thing was a joke from the start.
Posted by: John McIntyre | December 3, 2008 11:46 PM
Prof. McIntyre, you seem to be building your own Sandbox, but with a level of humor that requires more thought. Now some of us will be forced to function on two levels.
Humpf.
Posted by: Bucky | December 4, 2008 9:47 AM
I would like to dispute Mr bryanintimonium's statistic of 47% of people knowing that. The studies I have seen put that number at 47.67092837587%. Since my number has more decimal places it has to be more accurate and therefore the correct number.
Posted by: Robert (the Single One) | December 4, 2008 1:38 PM
Um Bucky,
Over here its the Parlor.
Humpf.
Posted by: PCB Rob | December 6, 2008 1:37 PM