Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
[Y]ou provided results but you didn't provide conclusions because you didn't have access to them. Do you think you provided conclusions?
When I say conclusions I mean statements like "Epidural analgesia is a safe and effective method of relieving pain in labor." Results would include something like, "Inadequate pain relief during labor and during delivery were found in 5.3% and 19.7% of patients." The former draws conclusions from the latter.
If you're pushing some other definition of conclusions, then I think this has devolved into arguing semantics. The important thing here is if what I provided was misleading. (Although, I am interested why something labeled as "conclusions" in the abstract would be considered something other than conclusions...)
So in your mind journalism isn't about choosing reliable, relevant sources, but rather about displaying any info and linking a source.
Yes, good journalism is about providing reliable, relevant information - and I think the studies I included speak for themselves in this regard. Do you see one that isn't reliable/relevant?
How exactly is that better than your "bad news" example?
I didn't intend my example to represent bad news, but my article is different in just in the way I explained: extent of information provided, original organization/presentation, time to research, etc.
RSS
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
I'd include a link to the involved studies, as well as about 10 others on the subject - along with summarized results/conclusions for each - organized by year
No you provided results but you didn't provide conclusions because you didn't have access to them. You only had access to the abstract and that may or may not contain all of the results. My whole beed was that there was no summary of the conclusions of these studies since the conclusion of an article seeks to resolve experimental design and results. Do you think you provided conclusions?
Right. So read the abstract/summary of the experimental goals. I gave you a link, you don't even have to look it up. ;)
The abstracts you read didn't give a summary of the experimental goals, hence my critique. Depending on the journal, abstracts can be extremely limited. Abstract was a poor word choice in that context, I should have clarified.
You have given the reader no reason to suspect that your references are valid at all.
Good. I hope they'll take the references on their own merit, not mine.
So in your mind journalism isn't about choosing reliable, relevant sources, but rather about displaying any info and linking a source. How exactly is that better than your "bad news" example? If you think there is no responsibility on your part to provide accurate, relevant (and this is where experimental design is key) sources than you have no business posting anywhere reputable.
View Full Discussion