> I guess the fact that he writes some of their conclusions counts for
Well done. I agree that this does show some bias on the part of this
> >Actually, it is my recollection that the media also covered the
> story that
> >this wasn't as big a deal as you might think.
> It was covered alright, about a hundred times less prominently.
> For instance the New York Times reporter retracted his story in
> Science Times, "Open Water at Pole is Not Surprising, Experts Say" and
> admitted that cracks in Arctic ice open every summer, actually.
> However just to prove a point he claimed that Arctic winter
> temperatures had risen 11 degrees in the last 30 years. Uh... more
> like 1.1 degrees and they dropped by the same amount in the previous
> 30 years.
Well, given issue X, a retraction of some story on X is almost always going
to be given less prominence than the original story. One of the few
exceptions that I can recall is the LA Times coverage of the Staples Center
issue, where the front page coverage was "we screwed up, details inside".
Typically, though, papers don't trumpet their mistakes.
As for the incorrect warming data -- obviously, this reporter should have
double-checked his facts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:15 PDT