tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post6184199557362568847..comments2024-02-21T19:56:57.057-08:00Comments on California Stem Cell Report: Were Some Scientists' Concerns about CIRM's Claims Worthy of Note?David Jensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00077329461962729362noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post-66698210980344333952008-04-26T09:06:00.000-07:002008-04-26T09:06:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comment, Larry. I can't speak to ...Thanks for your comment, Larry. I can't speak to the law journal question. I am not familiar with their practices. However, newspapers print falsehoods or dubious assertions on a daily basis. They are contained in material provided by government officials, attorneys, public relations people, letters to the editor, etc. Most of the time the material is in quotes but not always. As a practical matter, it is not possible for the media to check every single assertion made by persons quoted in stories. Just as it is impossible for me to check every assertion made by persons who comment on this blog, nor is it possible for you, Larry, to check claims made on your blog by others. The persons making those assertions have to take to primary responsibility for them.David Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077329461962729362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10000891.post-28227284191972174342008-04-25T21:06:00.000-07:002008-04-25T21:06:00.000-07:00I am curious about the journalistic ethics dimensi...I am curious about the journalistic ethics dimensions of text surrounding -- But because of the use of a single, <B>anonymous</B> source, many newspapers would not have carried the story as matter of policy. -- In some earlier posts on californiastemcellreport (for example 17 March 08, with comments on 19 March 08), there was discussion of the reliance by californiastemcellreport on a single, <B>not anonymous</B>, source, which seemed to convey false information to the effect that Yamanaka accepted a state [CIRM] grant in August 2007. Are you suggesting that a journalist may properly rely, without verification, on a single, not anonymous, source, and, when challenged, direct the reader to that single, not anonymous source? This sort of deflection has been a problematic area with "cite checking" in law journals, wherein a student cite checker merely checks the cited material is present in the earlier work, not whether the earlier work is accurate. Thus, all published errors in history become fair game for re-telling, with impunity. You seem to suggest journalists play by the same rules as law review cite checkers. True?<BR/><BR/>See also<BR/><A HREF="http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/semantic-ramblings-on-meaning-of-accept.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Semantic ramblings on the meaning of "accept"</A>Lawrence B. Eberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05616776187293753324noreply@blogger.com