|
|
|
|
|
|
by john_horton
3275 days ago
|
|
|
It wasn't dishonest - they didn't have the data for those multi-site employers b/c of how Washington state keeps records. The authors are upfront about this and try to address the limitation by adding a a survey component---they talked to these employers to see if their responses to the MW were different. |
|
|
I would say that in the transmission between the study and the mainstream press, something happened that is best described as "dishonest", or at the very least a reckless disregard for nuance. As you point out, and I agree, the study itself doesn't have that problem. The study itself is quite clear on its limitations.
So where's the issue? Is it just the general incompetency of the mainstream press (I could absolutely believe that). Is it the authors crossing every 't' in the study, but then overstating the findings and dropping the caveats in their interviews with the media? Is it the UW PR staff overstating the findings in a way PR staffs are wont to do? A combination of all of these.
I could believe any of those things. But when this study came out a few days ago, I had to read the study itself to have even a remote awareness of what it actually said (and remember, I think the findings are probably correct). And yes, I think that process is best described with the word "dishonest".