News Flash: Teens Ignorant
So, a new study says "Canadian teens know little about sexually transmitted infections and are participating in risky behaviour that could be hazardous to their health, an online survey of 14- to 17-year-olds has found." Eureka! Increasingly, the premises for what constitutes a newsworthy study are becoming pedestrian and obvious. The headline for this could have easily read Canadian Adults Completely Unaware Teens Naive, Horny.
I think I'm in the wrong business kids. I really need to land me a few big fat consulting gigs that do studies like The Political Economy of TimBit Consumpton and its Correlation to Fat Asses or The Ouch Effect: Application of Live Electrical Wires to Testicles Causes Physical Pain in Human Males.
I think I'm in the wrong business kids. I really need to land me a few big fat consulting gigs that do studies like The Political Economy of TimBit Consumpton and its Correlation to Fat Asses or The Ouch Effect: Application of Live Electrical Wires to Testicles Causes Physical Pain in Human Males.
posted by K-Dough at 6:45 AM
13 Comments:
My riskiest behaviour as a teen was more along the lines of that covered by that "Application of Live Wires" Report. Ouch factor indeed.
Your previous posts about irresponsible journalism over Bernardo were spot on, so I'm surprised that you missed the angle of this article.
The article says that 4 out of 5 teens aren't ignorant, although the thrust of the article implies Canadian teens would put the Studio 54 crowd to shame!
The whole thing is an advertorial for Merck, which is why it was newsworthy. It's easier to string together copy from a Big Pharma news release than bothering to see how ridiculous your article sounds.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Chris- thanks man.
Re: the angle- it was actually the Star that said the kids were "ignorant" in their headline. I was reiterating...
I'm not really clear on whether you are saying that advertorials are qualitatively newsworthy. You said "It's easier to string together copy from a Big Pharma news release than bothering to see how ridiculous your article sounds." While indeed, it may be easier it doesn't make it good journalism or editorial oversight to do so.
Yes, but you need to quantify the obvious. The important reason is to avoid these becoming 'common knowledge' so that idiots can't simply say, "Well everyone knows that!"
However, more important to most researchers is the real crux. Empirical evidence leads to further research funding.
James- gotcha- are you being facetious though when you say "Yes, but you need to quantify the obvious"? And who is the "you"- researchers, journalists, you?
As far as "empirical evidence" goes- I could debate the linguistic and epistemological difficulties of trying to quantify non-quantifiable data all night. I despise the methodology of the Durkheimian demographically-based so-called social sciences(i.e. sociology, political science etc...)
Editor's Note: Remarkably, I'm not as stodgy, cerebral and fucking boring in real life as I seem by previous statement.
I agree that it's bad, irresponsible journalism. The whole article's ridiculous, and given it was an online poll, who can trust the data anyway?
What I wanted to clarify was that article isn't about research grants. Given Merck paid for the study, trying to make it look legit through the patina of getting a non-profit organization to do it, this has more to do with Merck finding clever ways to market their HPV vaccine than the sexual well-being of teens.
That the Star ran it anyway has a lot to do with why they like to run Bernardo on the front page. They're lazy and cheap.
Chris- Sign of the times my friend, as far as the MSM goes. It's sad.
The dominance now of corporate messaging- whether in the private or public sector- has drowned substance in mass communications. Blogging may be the last stand. But how long wil that even hold out?
Re: the tendentious corporate-backed research-I thought that was where you going with that. Thanks for clarifying.
And still more from the obvious file.
Havril- that's freakin hilarious.
This is the new study I'm working on: Living Increases Humans' Chances of Dying:
Despite scientific and U.N. efforts to promote public health, the world's mortality rate remains at 100%.
Michelina- very funny. I was about to comment on the fact that you have never worn a helmet, but that wearing would, in your case, be redundant, since there is no use protecting from damage what is already clearly damaged.
Re: youtr taxpayers'comment:
I think the point was made though that corporations are commonly behind "independent" studies, and their commission or financial support for such studies often dictate the results.
I'm willing to do a "scientific" (read: completely anecdotal) study that says that drinking beer gives you a buzz (I know, that would be quantifying the obvious, but hey, it's just got to be done for the sake of scientific research), and that this actually promotes feelings of wellness, and is therefore good for you.
Anyone know how I can get Molson to sponsor me?
HOmO- I'm sure with the proper proposal you could actually get them to throw you a bone. Look at all the red wine studies over the past few years that say you should drink it everyday.
BTW- I plan to conduct some research in the same vein at around 5:30!
Hi K-Dough,
I came across this free promotional offer and thought it would be a great idea to share it with anyone who wanted Free Mp3 Music. Claim your 500 free music downloads with this special promotional campaign. To see if you qualify for Free Mp3 Music is extremely quick and easy ... simply key in your zip code (Yeah, that's all!), when requested. Give it a try ... you have nothing to loose, but stand to gain 500 free music downloads from Napster, iTunes or Yahoo Music!
Happy Listening
Emma
Post a Comment
<< Home