Foto Blag
Photos, links and thoughts, with a focus on odd vehicles since I have a slight obsession with them.
All of my personal work is licensed under a Creative Commons "Non-commercial/Share-alike/Attribution" copyright.
“Article contains up to 33% recycled content”
I was copy editing a story today about a company that’s advertising “AntiPoleez” lozenges - you suck on a lozenge and alcohol won’t be detectable on your breath. I thought it was a good idea for a story, but one thing bothered me.
The reporter spoke to police officers, who said it wasn’t at all likely the lozenges work. The story also included a link to the company’s Web site, where the lozenges could be purchased (a pack of 8 costs $2.99, apparently). My complaint - it would’ve been really easy to buy a pack of these things, have a staffer drink a few beers, and ask the University Police Department to help us test the lozenges with a breathalyzer. And then we would know for sure if they don’t work, rather than reporting that the UPD thinks they wouldn’t.
That doesn’t compromise our journalistic objectivity. In fact, it allows us to say “This is a lie; this product does not work” or “Underage drinkers, rejoice!” We’re supposed to inform our audiences, and half-hearted attempts to rewrite press releases on “exciting new products” does not do that.
A recent post at Language Log talks about this very issue, as it related to a number of articles on SpinSpotter, a FireFox plug-in that claimed it could be used to detect “spin” in writing. Language Log writer Geoffrey K. Pullum tried it out, and found it did nothing. But news organizations reporting the story did not mention that fact, leading Pullum to wonder if they’d even bothered to try it themselves. Based on my experience with our article… most likely they didn’t.
Disappointing. Disheartening. Not good journalism.
