Shock Horror Probe
Perhaps I expect too much of modern day journalism.
Take the following two articles:
The first concerns recent data on global warming ( HERE)
It is not the skeptical stance of the article that disturbs me, it is more the lack of accessibility to the released [quote] without fanfare [unquote] data -purportedly from the Met office.
I have looked for the referred to Met office document without success. Does it exist?
All it would have taken would have been a link or reference in the above article. Is that too much to ask?
I could Google and Bing and whatever and maybe (if it exists - which I expect it does) I would find it.
But the article without a valid reference is diminished.
To be fair, it also diminishes the Met Office by them not having ready access to what they must know is likely to be controversial data. Are they hiding it? Or does it not exist? Who knows?
If you know - tell me. It would be nice to know, so I can make my own judgement.
The second is this article concerning Peer to Peer lending (HERE)
Again I admit I am quite a fan of peer to peer lending but I still look to responsible journalism for proper information on this growing sector of the financial system.
The article referred to a small increase in repayment default at Zopa (still less than that accepted at the main banks) and also a failed company that operated on the margins and outside of the voluntary regulation self imposed by most responsible peer to peer companies.
Yet these two unrelated aspects are used to taint the reputation of the three main companies trading in this field, namely Zopa, Funding Circle and Ratesetter.
Perhaps if the article had concentrated on the need for formal FSA regulation (as demanded by Zopa, FC and RateSetter) then it would have had a purpose.
As it was it simply indulged in an orgy of half truths and innuendo.
Journalism fails us when the sources are not transparent. It particularly fails us when journalists fail to let the truth get in the way of a good story.