it won't run until next week because I need to interview some stupid doctor who will say the things I already looked up in the literature.

This is the thing that drives me crazy about journalists. They call you up and want to talk about some topic. You direct them to a great paper written by the biggest expert on the topic, and they say "No, I need to talk to someone. It's ok if you don't know that much about it. Just give me something to quote." It seems so strange that journalists, of all people, should fail to grasp the value of the written word as a source of information.

You are a major league kinkster!

Huh. And yet, no orgies or dungeons.

I know, we do, babe. but we have bosses that tell us things like we need to have someone ACTUALLY TELL US that "Washing your hands frequently is good for your health," to use an example from my student days, like we need somebody to confirm or deny such things.

Apparently I have "sweet hints of a kinky nature". Why does this seem like a contradiction in terms?

Feel better ~ma to Mr. Broom! How was New York?

Journalism sucks.

It does, indeed, says the girl with the journalism degree that only worked in the industry for 3 months. Any longer and I would have starved to death while working insane hours.

Is the rationale because journalism is supposed to be immediate and present tense, so having someone say something right now is more effective than quoting what someone wrote in the past, even the recent past?

It seems so strange that journalists, of all people, should fail to grasp the value of the written word as a source of information.

As a rule, it is not journalists who fail to grasp this. It is generally the more pedantic editors who see more value in the quote or immediately "fresh" statement than in actual scholarship.

Don't get me wrong, there are great editors. It's just that, like reporters, there are a lot of by-the-numbers hacks who should not be working in the field.

t dusts off the B.A. in journalism....

In general, "news" articles have a better hook when they include actual quotes by actual Live! Hot! Exxxxperts! than if they were just paragraph after paragraph of info, no matter how well-written.

Journalism is as much a product to sell as anything else. (So there, Lloyd Dobbler!)

Scientific articles, on the other hand -- at least the research articles that my journal publishes -- don't need quotes by Live! Hot! Scientists! to sell the articles.

t /puts degree back in closet, under Nehru jacket and daishiki

"No, I need to talk to someone. It's ok if you don't know that much about it. Just give me something to quote."

Exactly. I mean, I had a great source in mind, a professor who has actually done work on COX-2 inhibitors. He was the perfect source. But he wouldn't talk to me because he's already got lawsuits flying around. And Pfizer? Of course Pfizer won't talk to me. I couldn't get a good source, so I made do with what I had. Now I'm supposed to call some guy up from health services, as if he's some sort of expert on these things. I don't think anyone at University Health Services is prescribing fucking Celebrex.

My editor actually loved the Joss Whedon line, but she struck it out anyway, understandably. And a lot of the changes she made were for the better, I guess, to make the science easier to understand for the stupid people ("inhibit" is a big word now!). And I had a very nice closing paragraph that put the whole story into perspective as to what it said about the progress of science, but no, that was commentary and had to be cut. Fucking objectivity. I HAVE THOUGHTS, DAMMIT.

I couldn't get a good source, so I made do with what I had.

You can't call up a prof. in the pharmacology department?