"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
are?

I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
story
right.

Capitalism, and the fact (or theory, at least) that the news source the
reports a story FIRST is the one that people follow the most.

Well, now the truth comes out.

Okay...he's a clue that supports Steven's and my contention: You don't know
dick about capitalism (which has to closely guard it's reputation...also,
what we have under the FCC is certainly not capitalism, but I'm sure you got
the opposite info in journalsim school), but you (and your cohorts) love to
shoot your mouths off.

Thanks for that; you just made our case.

But, your
question is valid. The editor exists as the moderator between the
publisher's demand for information NOW and the reporter's human capacity
to
report accurate information in increasingly shorter periods of time.

The publisher (and the advertisers) demand the information pronto. The
reporter has to get it all as accurately as possible, and it's the
editor's
job to fact-check EVERY story at the last minute. If he/she misses a
deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his
job.

Really? Could you name a few instances where an editor got fired for this
(other than for outright fraud...which even THAT doesn't have much impact?


--
"Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts." - Dave Hitt