Comments on: Question for Journalists http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/ Harangues that just make sense Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:31:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Apparently the L.A. Times Got It Wrong Again http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-16971 Patterico’s Pontifications » Apparently the L.A. Times Got It Wrong Again Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:09:09 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-16971 [...] A journalist friend later told me that he had been taught in journalism school not to use the word “apparently,” ever. Times editors should have taken that advice when publishing yesterday’s story on Bush’s speech, which said: Hundreds of troops stood at attention without applauding as Bush entered, and refrained from clapping during most of the address. [...] […] A journalist friend later told me that he had been taught in journalism school not to use the word “apparently,” ever. Times editors should have taken that advice when publishing yesterday’s story on Bush’s speech, which said: Hundreds of troops stood at attention without applauding as Bush entered, and refrained from clapping during most of the address. […]

]]> By: tom mangan http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1620 tom mangan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1620 For editors, "apparently" is transparently a weasel word ... we don't like seeing it because it implies we're reporting the appearance vs. reality. An editor should call a reporter on it, and the reporter should have a list of reasons of things that can't be put in the paper (off the record comments, etc.) that enhance the likelihood that what is apparent is also true. But people do screw up, even at the L.A. Times. For editors, “apparently” is transparently a weasel word … we don’t like seeing it because it implies we’re reporting the appearance vs. reality.

An editor should call a reporter on it, and the reporter should have a list of reasons of things that can’t be put in the paper (off the record comments, etc.) that enhance the likelihood that what is apparent is also true.

But people do screw up, even at the L.A. Times.

]]> By: Frank G http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1621 Frank G Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1621 ranks up there with "some critics" in usage though, when the agenda drives the story. "Some critics think 'apparently' is an acceptable word to use when theorizing without factual backing" ranks up there with “some critics” in usage though, when the agenda drives the story.

“Some critics think ‘apparently’ is an acceptable word to use when theorizing without factual backing”

]]> By: JD http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1622 JD Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1622 I particularly like how the NY Time Nagourney is using former NY Times writer Adam "major league asshole" as a source for expert opinions in his columns now. I particularly like how the NY Time Nagourney is using former NY Times writer Adam “major league asshole” as a source for expert opinions in his columns now.

]]> By: former journalist http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1623 former journalist Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1623 The use of "alleged" and "allegedly" is hammered home, particular on the blotter beat. I would say "apparently" is a way to avoid redundant use of "allegedly" and I've probably done that. The words in this usage can be summed up as standard anti-libel practice. To use "apparently" in lieu of fact checking or finding a source willing to make a declarative statement, is, without doubt, wrong. The use of “alleged” and “allegedly” is hammered home, particular on the blotter beat. I would say “apparently” is a way to avoid redundant use of “allegedly” and I’ve probably done that. The words in this usage can be summed up as standard anti-libel practice.

To use “apparently” in lieu of fact checking or finding a source willing to make a declarative statement, is, without doubt, wrong.

]]> By: Xrlq http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1624 Xrlq Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://patterico.com/2004/04/14/question-for-journalists/#comment-1624 I'm not sure "allegedly" is that much better. On the one hand, it gets beaten to death; I distinctly remember reading that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were "allegedly" murdered - as if to suggest there was any doubt at all that <i>someone</i> had murdered them. On the other, I'm hard pressed to think of a single statement a paper could print that would be libelous if it was not prefaced by "allegedly," yet would not be if it was. I’m not sure “allegedly” is that much better. On the one hand, it gets beaten to death; I distinctly remember reading that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were “allegedly” murdered - as if to suggest there was any doubt at all that someone had murdered them. On the other, I’m hard pressed to think of a single statement a paper could print that would be libelous if it was not prefaced by “allegedly,” yet would not be if it was.

]]>