• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Harvey
    July 10, 2013 - 08:20

    Russell, when a scientist or a science report fails to present ALL of the known facts and instead only presents information that supports the opinions, bias and/ or the agendas of its authors, both the authors and the report fails the most basic test being qualified to carry the label of "science"! There are a few so called "scientists" that have made a career out of doing nothing but using media to promote personal bias. Your suggestion is to label those biases as being "research" based and present them unchallenged? God help us all!

  • Stephen D Redgrave
    July 10, 2013 - 07:49

    I don't mind hearing the journalistic voice of the writer. I believe it is possible for a reporter to remain objective while subtly letting us know which side he or she stands on. Readers can usually spot who has the most to gain or lose by taking any given stand on a topic. If the facts are reported accurately the reader should figure it out..

  • Winston
    July 09, 2013 - 18:28

    Good article Russell, and needing some reflection on the Telegram's coverage of the Muskrat falls issue. I have been an advocate of the benefits of efficiency as a major component for keeping electricity costs in check. The opposing argument, by Nalcor, is that we are approaching saturation in efficiency gains for our housing. The Nalcor side is obviously false, but gets credibility. You say reporters need to test the quality of the information and weight what deserves credibility. This is an excellent idea, and should be the normal procedure. But the Telegram has applied none of the standard you propose. They say nothing at all on the efficiency option, and so give Nalcor a free pass.

  • crista
    July 09, 2013 - 08:37

    Reading your article Russell and this article out weighs others of your articles for the reasons the credibility of the evidence of scientist and fraudulent evidence that is released and the balances of the truths that are being released and told????How can anybody get to under stand the truths if they are fraudulently being mislead???? and that being the case how can you have equal rights???? and if you do not have any rights,would that not be dictation ????and off balance rights???? what happened to innocent until proven guilty or is that another way of fast tracking through the truths or is it reading between the lines????. ... is that the way the system works???? and if so what do you have to pay in to some thing that is dishonest and useless and you can decide if that is going on in your own words???? of the benefits of them selves???? if what you are saying in your article, if it has any merits to what you have wrote in your article???? then there is something seriously not rights????

  • Colin Burke
    July 09, 2013 - 07:46

    What it seems you're really asking for, Mr. Wangersky, is better judgement and high integrity on the part of journalists and also greater public trust in these, more than in those of the people on whom reporters are supposed to report. I think I still prefer the reporters to be more or less "objective" in their reporting and to let me figure out whether to trust the judgement or honesty of the people on whom they report. I don't want journalism to be deemed infallible.