Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1197658829

From: marianne dillow <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] GENEALOGY-DNA Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2082
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:00:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>


Could you share your story with the list after you send it to Denis or give us a summary please ?? :)

Marianne Dillow

Jerry Lobdill <> wrote:
Very good suggestions Denis. I'll send you an unpublished story soon.

Jerry Lobdill

At 10:17 AM 12/14/2007, Denis Savard wrote:

>Le 07-12-11 ? 17:50, wrote : :
> >>> I'm afraid these kind of articles affects the population
> >>> immensely. The
> >>> regular news is the same way. The media is hype and the news is
> ...snip...
> > symptom of a much
> > larger problem that informs nearly everything we hear, read, and see.
>I think it's a little too easy to blame the reporters in this case,
>like it's a little too easy for the reporters to say DNA testing is
>trivial. I am a journalist working for an independent news wire
>agency - one of the few remaining independant outlets.
>Today, most large and small media outlets are owned by corporations.
>Twenty years ago, newspaper editors had free reign to do
>investigating reporting, and assign journalists on issus for months
>on end, with the blessing of the owners mindfull of having a quality
>Today, Shareholder, who are the real owners of the Corporations, are
>interested in one thing: PROFITS and the BOTTOM LINE. So when the
>reporter is given 2 or 3 hours to report on DNA testing companies,
>how is he supposed in that time frame to correctly grasp the
>principles of DNA testing, let alone all of the details?... It took
>me months to grasp the subtilities...
>Need proof? Hundreds of thousands have been starving to death or are
>being killed in Dafur, but we are more interested wether Brittany is
>wearing panties or not (not us here, but generally of course),
>because that's what people want to read. Even the most "serious"
>outlets can't help themselves anymore and flash Brittney or Paris....
>Unfortunatly, at this point it is not a question of pleading to the
>outlets to change their ways. They will deliver what the public asks,
>because of the bottom line.
>And I won't even get in the convergence tendencies happening
>everywhere other than to say that today, once the reporter wrote his
>rough draft, he doesn't do background work and verifications like in
>the old days, but instead he has to rewrite for the Web, for
>broadcast radio, TV, for freebee commute papers, etc. etc. And they
>said a thousand times it wouldn't affect quality... Gah!
>We need to fight fire with fire. When you get a feel-good Story -
>finding the real name of a long adopted line, or whatever - call your
>local paper's Lifestyle Editor. If you give them what was
>accomplished and proved, they don't even need to get in the details
>of DNA and understand the steep learning curve to make an
>interesting story. THAT will sell. If the story is good enough, it
>may be picked up by a national wire spreading it to most dailies,
>etc. or simply picked up by other paper from the web. And then the
>fun begins. Readers will soon forget the "trivial"comments when they
>see real-life application tied to a good story - which they will
>remember and which may override future negative articles...
>Reporters naturally get on the defensive when it is a company flak
>(PR person) that approaches a media outlet. Sure they may want to
>offer a balanced story even if they are the reseller, but nonetheless
>they will be seen as trying to sell something. So these stories on
>case studies need to be suggested by us the consumers, not from the
>labs. The reporters can then interview lab representatives to comment
>on the specific findings for background. That way the reporter also
>stays happy with the feeling having dug up the story, instead of
>simply rewriting a press release...
>Point out any such article published in a local Canadian paper, and I
>can suggest it for the national wire. Or give me a few unpublished
>good stories and I might just write one on my own time...
>Denis Savard
>Photo Editor
>The Canadian Press

This thread: