potentially very damaging,
cheap real jordans
.
“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, let’s look at Bohannon’s evidence and conclusions. “If a study doesn’t even list how many people took part in it,
cheap jordans online
, or makes a bold diet claim that’s ‘statistically significant’ but doesn’t say how big the effect size is,
cheap jordans free shipping
, you should wonder why,
cheap air jordans
,” 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 Authentic jordans
, 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,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, 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 jordan shoes
,000 reporters subscribe to the Newswise

http://al-inshad.com/v...m&p=703778#post703778

http://diak.katolikusk...read.php?thread_id=470363

http://period-calendar...opic.php?f=14&t=98996