October 28, 2005

It Ain't Necessarily So (Ch 4 and 5)

As much as chapter 2 and 3 open with the view that scientists are one of the main reasons why some of these facts are messed up, it is apparent in Chapter 4 that the journalists are to blame. In the opening of Chapter 4, Dan Rather starts off his report by saying:

"A startling number of American children in danger of starving. Dan Rather reporting. Good evening. One out of every eighth American children under the age of twelve is going hungry tonight."

Are we to really believe that one out of eight children are starving tonight? Are 12-13% of American children are going to starve? I first questioned this immediately (instead of being dumbfounded and saying "oh wow...i have to help right away!"). I looked at the sources to which they came from, which was a statement that came testing done in a two-year study by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). The Proxies that were used were for hunger, which is hard to define, because how the heck can hunger be measured? It really can't.

So I ask: is Dan Rather to blame? Yes and No. Remember last chapter when we said that "journalists are not scientists." But for some reason this situation feels different (maybe because we hold Dan Rather to be like a celebrity). Lemme know what's up.

Posted by The Gentle Giant at October 28, 2005 08:15 AM
Comments

I don't think it is a question of is Dan Rather to blame? I don't look at that type of television journalist in the same light as I do "real" investigative reporters. Dan Rather is basically an actor used by a news station in order to present a message to the viewing public.

Now if I knew that Dan Rather went out and researched everything that came out of his mouth on television I might feel differently. He is a puppet for the network that dances on the screen singing tunes of poverty and war.

Posted by: Leslie Rodriguez at October 28, 2005 12:31 PM

I'm neither defending Dan Rather nor am I a fan, but he came up through the ranks the hard way. I remember the shocking incident at the 1968 Democratic Presidential Convention (Chicago) when he got knocked down on the convention floor by security guards. During that convention protestors were violently accousted throughout Chicago. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/broadcasts/main678628.shtml

Posted by: NancyGregg at October 30, 2005 05:41 PM

Wow, that really is a story. I checked out the link you posted Nancy. I suppose I may have been speaking a little bit out of term considering I did not know all the facts. Sometimes I forget that things did happen when I was a child, and before I was born. I think I was having one of those moments where you don't really think about an event or occurence...that you don't consider to be a thing you lived through. Does that make sense? Thanks for the correction Nancy.

Posted by: Leslie Rodriguez at November 3, 2005 01:41 PM

That really is a great story Nancy. I have no idea how you find some of this stuff, but you really nail it. I am personally neutral on Dan Rather, I really think that he's a monkey for the public. He does everything that he is supposed to, which is good journalism, but he never really convinces me that he is really into what he does.

Posted by: Jason Pugh at November 10, 2005 07:38 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?