". . .just the idea that they [Fox] thought this appropriate to report on speaks volumes about Fox News"
Most of us, with the possible exception of "Jim," appear to agree on the horrors of racial stereotyping; but the concern over whether Fox (or any news outlet, really) should have covered this story is, by itself, an important issue. It goes to the heart of freedom of information. I'm personally glad we had this link to Dr. W's quotes.
Having a bit of a journalism background, I can say that whoever composed this article did it appropriately. It is a straight news item, not an editorial. As such, the facts are reported, and the reader is left to digest those facts. Editorializing and/or censorship are inappropriate in the context of straight news. For instance, the reporter would have been out of line to express an opinion on the absurdity of Dr. W's comments since it is not an article about the reporter's opinions. Dr. W's comments are exposed, though; and he is, obviously, accountable for his comments.
All editors have space/time considerations, but good journalism mandates coverage of a broad range of topics. Race related topics are no exception. I wouldn't be comfortable if my news sources thought their mission was to limit what I was exposed to--or to direct my thinking by editorializing in a straight news item. Editorializing is supposed to be strictly for the editorial page or editorial time slots. (This is one of the hardest things for journalists to adhere to.)
Our job as consumers of news is to seek out several sources for our news. A journalism instructor of mine shared this concept with her students. She said that to get a more accurate perspective on any story, a person should seek out multiple sources. This has proven to be SO true. One reporter may have a source that another doesn't have. Thank goodness we live in a country where we have SO many options--if we doubt one source, we can consult another. Or, if we just want more on a particular story, we can look at multiple sources. Anyway, looking for multiple sources is the best protection against being manipulated by any particular source.
In this case, "Jim" was my first "source." He made a short statement which he attempted to substantiate with the Fox article. Being curious, I looked at the Fox article. I'm glad I read it. For me, Dr. W. basically shot himself in the foot when he failed to censor his unscientific side! Now, if I happen to land in an auditorium where he is introduced as a speaker, (1) I'll know what they left off of his "credentials" in the introduction and (2) I'll know to be wary of his conclusions.
Just a few thoughts.
