[X] My Assistant

[Stu]

Sounds like the presentation went down very well, congrats Doug! (well worth downloading the slides too everyone, by the way...)

On a slightly different subject, wonder how many of you have come across this yet..?

"Martian soil might contain life"

Offered without comment or opinion, just wondered if anyone had seen it... reckon it'll be all over the news tomorrow.

[djellison]

That's not a report. When SpaceDaily say 'by Staff Writers' they actually mean the copying and pasting of a press release, in full, verbatim.

Here's the press release, as it was in my inbox on Aug 18th.

[]Subject : Calculating the Biomass of Martian Soil
Email : A new interpretation of data from NASA's Viking landers indicates that 0.1%
of the Martian soil tested could have a biological origin.

Dr Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany, believes that the
subfreezing, arid Martian surface could be home to organisms whose cells are
filled with a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and water. In a presentation at
the European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam .....[/I]

I don't think I need to carry on. Calling it reporting is like calling photocopying a work of art.

Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

That's not a report. When SpaceDaily say 'by Staff Writers' they actually mean the copying and pasting of a press release, in full, verbatim.

True enough, though SpaceDaily is by no means the only offender. Frankly, I've always thought this practice, widely accepted in the "space news" media, is not only misleading but borderline scuzzy.

[dvandorn]

True enough, though SpaceDaily is by no means the only offender. Frankly, I've always thought this practice, widely accepted in the "space news" media, is not only misleading but borderline scuzzy.

It's a grand old tradition in just about every journalistic enterprise, unfortunately. I started out, back in nineteen-mumblety-mumble, as a journalism major and then as a reporter/editor/photographer for a small suburban newspaper chain near Chicago. About 40% of the "news" content of those things consisted of slightly re-written press releases. I spent more time rewriting them than most of the staff, since a vast majority of those who write the press releases have no journalistic training and write extremely poor news stories.

It happens everywhere, from the Oak Brook Press to the New York Times. Trust me.

-the other Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

About 40% of the "news" content of those things consisted of slightly re-written press releases.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the key description above is "slightly re-written." And I'm aware that this practice is widespread in the media as a whole, not just the space news outlets. Even re-writes are barely palatable, at least to me, but when news outlets post verbatim press releases in their web content, it's at the very least misleading. It's also inexcusable in this Age of the Internet when press releases are almost always online and can be simply linked rather than reproduced on one's own site. Frankly, the oft-repeated excuses that are trotted out to justify this practice (e.g., journalistic deadlines, poor writing of press releases, etc.) aren't convincing.

Perhaps my view is a bit prudish if not outdated, but it probably stems from academia, where even the slightest hint of "borrowing" or passing off other work as one's own is labeled plagiarism.