Evidence Based News 2
Another letter to NPR:
When confronted with past interviews (that were dead wrong) it would be great, one day, to hear a guest say, “Wow, what was I was thinking?”
On March 14, you had two guests on discussing President Obama’s actions in Libya. Tom Malinowski thought the president’s actions were too-little-too late, while General Wesley Clark thought Obama was drawing us into another war. I wonder if you could have these two gentlemen on again and ask both “experts” how they got it so completely wrong.
It seems to me that there is a serious flaw in news commentary which allows guests with opposing views, to each give their opinion without forcing them to engage and challenge one another. In a format such as this, there is no consequence for either person if he or she is incorrect. It assumes that we, the general public, will simply forget that particular moment in history. In reality, by giving opinions that were basically wrong, these people were greatly complicating an already difficult situation.
When there is a specific controversy that will have a specific outcome in the future, NPR should look at moments such as these as an opportunity. Get guests to agree to come back on the show one year after their predictions to explain themselves. If they are not willing to do so, then NPR should not allow them to broadcast their message to a national audience. A policy such as this would go a long way in helping the field of so called experts shed itself of the overabundance of news analysts who are bad at analyzing the news.
When confronted with past interviews (that were dead wrong) it would be great, one day, to hear a guest say, “Wow, what was I was thinking?”
On March 14, you had two guests on discussing President Obama’s actions in Libya. Tom Malinowski thought the president’s actions were too-little-too late, while General Wesley Clark thought Obama was drawing us into another war. I wonder if you could have these two gentlemen on again and ask both “experts” how they got it so completely wrong.
It seems to me that there is a serious flaw in news commentary which allows guests with opposing views, to each give their opinion without forcing them to engage and challenge one another. In a format such as this, there is no consequence for either person if he or she is incorrect. It assumes that we, the general public, will simply forget that particular moment in history. In reality, by giving opinions that were basically wrong, these people were greatly complicating an already difficult situation.
When there is a specific controversy that will have a specific outcome in the future, NPR should look at moments such as these as an opportunity. Get guests to agree to come back on the show one year after their predictions to explain themselves. If they are not willing to do so, then NPR should not allow them to broadcast their message to a national audience. A policy such as this would go a long way in helping the field of so called experts shed itself of the overabundance of news analysts who are bad at analyzing the news.
Comments