It’s absolutely mind-boggling that virtually every major outlet in the world reporting the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling yesterday has failed to mention one of the most important facts of the entire case. Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes.
Not really.
Genetics is generally a poorly understood subject. Even in online discussion groups for people with genetic disorders, basic information about genetics is often not well understood by many of the members, even though almost all will be there because either they or an immediate family member has a genetic disorder.
I’m not sure leaving out relevant details because they are poorly understood is good journalistic practice, especially when those details are central to what’s being discussed. It would only take a paragraph to clarify what XX, XY, and intersex means. It’s exactly what the writer of the linked article did.
Perhaps Hanlon’s Razor is the right approach to judging the way this is handled in much of the media. You might be right, in which case the responsibility is on the editors and fact checkers at those newspapers to ensure that reporters don’t make such mistakes.
I will make one last attempt to make my original point:
I have a homozygous recessive genetic disorder, as does my oldest son. Genetics 101 tells me that my other son and ex husband are both carriers.
People who have the same genetic disorder or who are caring for a child with the same genetic disorder have asked me how I know these immediate relatives are carriers.
So my confidence that most people know anything about basic genetics is pretty low -- even if they happen to be reporters, editors, etc.
No, I understand your point. My point is that they have a responsibility to educate themselves or talk to subject-matter experts before they publish. Ignorance isn’t a defence or mitigation. It’s literally their job to pick up the phone and talk to people who understand the issues at hand before publishing misleading articles read by millions.
Though writing simply doesn't pay well these days, if at all. That fact is undermining the quality of the writing we are seeing.
Newspapers and all kinds of other writing is being squeezed financially. Ad revenue is way down. Local papers are shutting down left and right.
Etc.
As a poverty-stricken writer myself who gets told to quit my bitching and get a real job, I'm not super sympathetic to the world's demands for good writing that is also magically completely free.
I’m also a writer (ghostwriting mostly) so I sympathize with that view, but not when it comes to major newspapers publishing misleading content, especially when the “mistakes” seem coordinated to support an emotive or political agenda.
That is the most pathetic excuse I've heard in a long time. Maybe if journalists actually did proper and thorough research, the field wouldn't be so despised and the dumpster fire it is today. The world demands good writing and the fact that it isn't happening is the reason news outlets are going under. Research is free assuming you have a computer and the internet, but if you're a writer, you already have those at your disposal; any whiny excuse thereafter is complete BS.
It may be that the issue is complex, but the fact that she has XY chromsomes is definitely a salient fact. There are basically two defining characteristics of masculinity at a biological level: XY chromosomes and testosterone. She has XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone. It certainly may be that there is additional nuance yet to be revealed, but to not report on one of these facts is unbelievably dishonest.
I think it is worrying that some types of facts sometimes appear to be left out or be misrepresented seemingly willingly to produce a certain image. That's not what I expect from good news reporting.
As an example take the 1.7% intersex figure quoted in the article. Apparently a reporter took this to big number to inflate the importance of her message. I think that disqualifies such an author to be credible.
XX vs XY chromosomes for women vs men is broadly taught in schools. Most people (at least in developed countries) will remember it at least vaguely. I find it very unlikely that all the reporters at these mainstream news sites were just ignorant of this.
Not really.
Genetics is generally a poorly understood subject. Even in online discussion groups for people with genetic disorders, basic information about genetics is often not well understood by many of the members, even though almost all will be there because either they or an immediate family member has a genetic disorder.