🚀 go-pugleaf

In <STAT-L%93010722063636@VM1.MCGILL.CA> EJOHNSO3@UA1VM.BITNET writes:

>Bob Parker asked:

>How can we (statisticians) make it apparent to people who run news shows
>(as one example) that maybe they ought to have statisticians talking about
>statistical issues?
>- - -

>Here Bob makes the common assumption that there is a positive correlation be-
>tween managing "news" shows and the design to correctly inform, when in fact
>there is no significant relationship. At best they are independent variables,
>if not mutually exclusive. The confounding variable is ratings. The sole rea-
>son the major networks now carry "news" shows is to sell air time. You can bet
>if the networks can get higher ratings by offering more entertainment than
>facts during the "news" they surely will.

>Here's the best example I know of this. An extraordally gifted masters student
>of mine auditioned as a weekend anchor in a mid-sized market. No one could
>match his journalistic skills, but he failed to get the job because his eyes
>didn't match the teddybear image they wanted to play off the woman anchor. It
>was enough  for me to forget cable TV payments and invest that money in a news-
>paper subscription. I know those folks aren't hired for their looks.

Bob Parker was talking about the McNeil-Lehrer news hour, on public
TV.  This network and this show aims for a thinking audience and is
not so beholden to advertisers as the commercial networks.  So his
point still stands:  why, along with the other experts, was there not
a statistician on the panel?

I might also point out that neither Robert McNeil nor Jim Lehrer is
much of a "teddy-bear", as you put it.


Sorry to take this so seriously.  As for the commercial networks, the
uncorrelated nature of the relationship holds.

Alana Boltwood (aboltwoo@ccs.carleton.ca)
4th year BA Hons Statistics student, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, Canada
(Grad. May '93, looking for social science research work)