I love poor journalism
It gives me something to write about. Thank goodness for Canwest.
A Canwest article in Thursday's Montreal Gazette discusses the results of a survey on the sexual fantasies of Canadians. (Insert your own joke here. I'll wait.)
Go read the article, to which I linked above. Done? Notice anything strange?
It's a decent report, as far as these things go, up to the point where it discusses women's turn-offs. Then it does this:
See the problem yet?
Granted, the survey almost certainly did not offer simple binary responses, i.e. a choice of yes or no. But you have to think that the number of women and men who enjoyed fulfilling their dream of having sex with a stranger was higher than the 28% and 26% who were disappointed. The numbers of satisfied "customers" (and I wonder if I need those quotation marks) weren't as high as 100-28=72% and 100-26=74%, but I would bet good money that more people enjoyed the experience than did not. In fairness, that's what the article should have reported, but due to the writer's or editorial bias, it took the puritan high road.
Similarly, how can you say that "other reveries that ended in real-life disappointment included meeting a celebrity (36 per cent of men, 31 per cent of women)" when two thirds of the folks were not disappointed, at least, or happy at best? And that's the least offensive of these comparisons. It's irresponsible journalism and while the end result isn't harmful, the principle should be inviolate.
Bonus Google skillz:
About two hours after my previous post, A search at Google for "ovechkin dancing girls" produced this li'l ol' blog at the top. Alas, that fame was fleeting....
Heck, even my long-time claim to the number one spot in a search for "early senility" has been usurped by Reader's Digest, which, by the way, isn't hiring freelance fact-checkers anymore.
A Canwest article in Thursday's Montreal Gazette discusses the results of a survey on the sexual fantasies of Canadians. (Insert your own joke here. I'll wait.)
Go read the article, to which I linked above. Done? Notice anything strange?
It's a decent report, as far as these things go, up to the point where it discusses women's turn-offs. Then it does this:
The survey also looked at fantasies gone awry, with 28 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men saying their dream of having sex with a stranger didn't work out as planned. Other reveries that ended in real-life disappointment included meeting a celebrity (36 per cent of men, 31 per cent of women), landing the "dream job" (15 per cent men, 24 per cent women), falling in love (21 per cent men, 25 per cent women), breaking the law (21 per cent men, nine per cent women), and getting married (four per cent men, 16 per cent women).
See the problem yet?
Granted, the survey almost certainly did not offer simple binary responses, i.e. a choice of yes or no. But you have to think that the number of women and men who enjoyed fulfilling their dream of having sex with a stranger was higher than the 28% and 26% who were disappointed. The numbers of satisfied "customers" (and I wonder if I need those quotation marks) weren't as high as 100-28=72% and 100-26=74%, but I would bet good money that more people enjoyed the experience than did not. In fairness, that's what the article should have reported, but due to the writer's or editorial bias, it took the puritan high road.
Similarly, how can you say that "other reveries that ended in real-life disappointment included meeting a celebrity (36 per cent of men, 31 per cent of women)" when two thirds of the folks were not disappointed, at least, or happy at best? And that's the least offensive of these comparisons. It's irresponsible journalism and while the end result isn't harmful, the principle should be inviolate.
Bonus Google skillz:
About two hours after my previous post, A search at Google for "ovechkin dancing girls" produced this li'l ol' blog at the top. Alas, that fame was fleeting....
Heck, even my long-time claim to the number one spot in a search for "early senility" has been usurped by Reader's Digest, which, by the way, isn't hiring freelance fact-checkers anymore.
posted by Webs at
11:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home