[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Reuter's (was:'Thousands of dinosaur footprints found in Australia')

In a message dated 97-07-09 16:26:47 EDT, Mickey writes:

<< Is it just me, or does everyone here groan when they see a message
 that came from Reuter?...  <big snip>

 ...Anybody have any ideas on what can be done to improve Reuter's
 accuracy of reporting?  I think just about every such report I've seen
 on dinosaurs has had glaring errors; I presume that their inaccuracies
 aren't limited to their coverage of paleontology...>>

I agree that Reuter's is not terribly ... um ... shall I say ... 'proficient'
?? at reporting the news; but then, they are, I think, more of a 'raw source'
for information for news services which, upon receiving a Reuter's report,
have the basis for follow up by ... um, ... shall I say ... 'thorough' or,
even, 'competent' professionals?  [warning; geezing starts here!!]  ... in
the olden days, information transfer, being by nature slower, allowed the
Reuter's reporters more opportunity to be more thorough; today, speed is all
that matters (not that it wasn't always important, but in the past the mode
of transmit allowed a bit more time for thought in drafting a report) and the
broadness of the raw data coverage today allows no time whatsoever for ... um
...  quality considerations.  I'm alluding here to a general condition, not
insisting that this is the summation of all that's going on.  But in any
event, we are left with shallow, raw commentary passed as 'news'.  Offhand,
in light of increasing pressures for speed, and little or no interest in
content, I'd say you might as well get used to the situation...

Wayne A. Bottlick