![]() | |||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Omissions Analysis: It is often said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The misuse or misunderstanding of statistics can give us a distorted view of reality. One form of statistical information news organizations frequently use is polling. Polls have become an important part of our political and social discussions, often being used as evidence to promote or undermine a position or idea. One thing that makes them powerful is the appearance of scientific accuracy. Polling firms generally claim their results have a margin of error 3-5%. It is important to keep in mind that the results pollsters get often depend not just on the validity of the polling sample but also on the wording of the questions asked. Questions can be framed to – intentionally or unintentionally – elicit certain responses. When reading poll results, check to see if the exact questions that were asked are included. If they are not, the apparent results of the poll should be treated with skepticism. If the questions are included, consider other ways they could have been asked. If you can easily come up with fairer or less biased way to ask the question then, once again, skepticism is in order.
|

Below are two articles, one real and one made up. The real article, from the New York Times, reports on the nation's shock and grief after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff, killing all aboard. The fabricated article is what a paper such as the New York Times may have been able to print if news organizations had done a better job of investigating and reporting on the U.S. space program.
Key Questions to keep in mind while reading the following example of Omission:
Complete Articles:
|
Omissions Analysis: According to the "Columbia Journalism Review" article excerpted above.
"... over the years, there had been a series of conspicuous red flags pointing
to shuttle unreliability" and that the news media failed to adequately
report about these "red flags." There was some excellent reporting
of the space program's problems in low circulation periodicals like the magazine
"Science." Major news outlets were more likely to report problems
in a fairly perfunctory manner with little or no follow up reporting. There
was a tendency amongst many to take more of boosterish than an investigatory
approach to coverage of the U.S. space program. The following headline from
a 1981 article in the "New York Times" typifies the tone of coverage
NASA tended to receive: "ASTRONAUTS CERTAIN OF SHUTTLE"S SAFETY." It is impossible to know if better reporting would have made it possible to
avert the Challenger disaster. It does seem reasonable to assert that what was
omitted, from much of the coverage of the space shuttle program, made it more
likely that such a tragedy would occur. Most instances of omission do not have
the serious repercussions that this case does. But the failure to adequately
report on important issues can and does have long term negative consequences.
It can be difficult for consumers of the news to know when they are not getting
the whole story. It is wise to watch out for boosterism or any other sign that
the reporter is not casting a critical eye on that which he or she covers. |