potentially very damaging,
cheap jordan shoes
.
“Our key resource as journalists is credibility,
cheap retro jordans
,” Edmonds told me. “And a deceptive ploy like this could damage that.”
“Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism,” is a key canon of the American Society of News Editors statement of principles. “Minimize harm,” says the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. This includes making sure to “consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.” Did Bohannon and his colleagues consider how many readers — journalism’s “man on the street” — will conclude from their prank that all of journalism and all of science is not to be trusted?
Putting the ethics aside,
cheap jordans online
, let’s look at Bohannon’s evidence and conclusions. “If a study doesn’t even list how many people took part in it,
cheap wholesale jordans
, or makes a bold diet claim that’s ‘statistically significant’ but doesn’t say how big the effect size is,
cheap air jordans
, you should wonder why,” he notes. Fair enough. But his own claims that his scam exposed “laziness” and the generally “lackadaisical” approach of reporters are not supported by any data on how many journalists read the press release,
cheap jordans for sale
, contacted him or wrote up the story.
Bohannon names 12 news outlets that covered the study (that’s counting HuffPo twice) and a 13th reporter whom he spoke with,
cheap real jordans
, but hasn’t yet published anything on the study. He also refers to it making news in “20 countries.” (A Google News Archive search suggests that 17 outlets picked up the story). Considering that more than 5,
cheap Authentic jordans
,000 reporters subscribe to the Newswise

http://www.midwestartfairs.com/node/add/article

http://www.siempreluce...p;view=article&id=115

http://www13.plala.or....ite_roots/gwbbs/gwbbs.cgi