the guardian responds!

cool. the guardian reader's editor, ian mayes got back to me. he says that: there does seem to be a conflict [between the desire to eradicate bad science reporting and the health/wellbeing article contents] and he will pass my email to the editor of the [weekend] magazine, and also to the editor of the guardian. so there. writing to newspapers can be fun and useful. so hopefully if enough people decide its a good thing, there will be better researched science and medicine articles and less junk and 'alternative' therapies being promoted by journalists who should know better...

for those who haven't heard of him, ian mayes is the 'reader's editor' of the guardian, in charge of the daily corrections and clarifications column, also a weekly column discussing some of the content and contextual issues of that week's reporting. he's also put together a collection of these columns in a couple of books, which i highly recommend. the guardian was the first paper to have an editorial position like this, and i think it reflects well in their content - they listen to their readers a lot more than any other paper i know of.

No comments: