Journalism?
Oct. 26th, 2003 10:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusThe AP issued an article about yesterday's protests against the war in Iraq.
I only have two comments about the article. First, there's the usual:
" Bush was spending the weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland."
He's always whisked away when there are protests going on. I wonder if he even knows a substantial number of people are against his overseas adventurism, or if his handlers keep that kind of information away from him. I have to wonder if the man even knows why he was sent to Camp David this weekend?
Secondly, there's this paragraph:
" Organizers estimated that 100,000 people turned out for the demonstration, but police at the scene put the number much lower, from 10,000 to 20,000. Police no longer issue official crowd estimates, so the size of the protest could not be verified."
Yes, group organizers often over-estimate the number of the crowd supporting them, and the police always under-estimate. I agree with the police policy of not issuing official crowd estimates. Frankly, that isn't their job, and there's no reason they should have to devote any resources to doing it.
However, it does NOT therefore follow that "the size of the protest could not be verified." This level of sloppy, downright lazy, journalism really pisses me off. The AP should not be relying on official sources for all of their news. What the hell happened to the idea of a journalist actually gathering information on their own? The AP is a huge organization. Can't they even afford an hour or two of helicopter time to fly over the crowds and count from the air? If they don't have anyone on staff who can count a crowd, they should hire someone for an hour. It's not that hard to do. If they can't find someone who's an expert at counting crowds, they should hire a blood work technician. The techniques for counting loud crowds in the air are identical to techniques for counting white blood cells from a microscope: Divide into grids, count the number in a grid, multiply by how many grids there are. A little trickier than white blood cells since crowd densities are less uniform, but at least it'll be a lot closer than the "maybe somewhere between 10,000-100,000" that they issue.
Official statements should never blindly be taken as fact by the AP (and this statement is not limited to when Bush is in office!), and they certainly shouldn't be relied on as the only source of information. C'mon, AP, it's called journalism, and it's your fucking job! Don't you think it's time you start doing it?
I only have two comments about the article. First, there's the usual:
" Bush was spending the weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland."
He's always whisked away when there are protests going on. I wonder if he even knows a substantial number of people are against his overseas adventurism, or if his handlers keep that kind of information away from him. I have to wonder if the man even knows why he was sent to Camp David this weekend?
Secondly, there's this paragraph:
" Organizers estimated that 100,000 people turned out for the demonstration, but police at the scene put the number much lower, from 10,000 to 20,000. Police no longer issue official crowd estimates, so the size of the protest could not be verified."
Yes, group organizers often over-estimate the number of the crowd supporting them, and the police always under-estimate. I agree with the police policy of not issuing official crowd estimates. Frankly, that isn't their job, and there's no reason they should have to devote any resources to doing it.
However, it does NOT therefore follow that "the size of the protest could not be verified." This level of sloppy, downright lazy, journalism really pisses me off. The AP should not be relying on official sources for all of their news. What the hell happened to the idea of a journalist actually gathering information on their own? The AP is a huge organization. Can't they even afford an hour or two of helicopter time to fly over the crowds and count from the air? If they don't have anyone on staff who can count a crowd, they should hire someone for an hour. It's not that hard to do. If they can't find someone who's an expert at counting crowds, they should hire a blood work technician. The techniques for counting loud crowds in the air are identical to techniques for counting white blood cells from a microscope: Divide into grids, count the number in a grid, multiply by how many grids there are. A little trickier than white blood cells since crowd densities are less uniform, but at least it'll be a lot closer than the "maybe somewhere between 10,000-100,000" that they issue.
Official statements should never blindly be taken as fact by the AP (and this statement is not limited to when Bush is in office!), and they certainly shouldn't be relied on as the only source of information. C'mon, AP, it's called journalism, and it's your fucking job! Don't you think it's time you start doing it?
