Austria ... home of Olympic heroes

What qualifies one to be a radio DJ? Was driving home from work today and flipping through channels, as I am forced to do because my 1998 Honda Civic has neither satellite radio, CD player nor MP-3 capability. (And by the way, there's no AC.)

Anyway, whilst flipping, I came upon a couple of nincompoops prattling about the Olympics. These would-be news junkies, who "work" for some FM station in the Denver area, were discussing the medal count. First, the male voice boasted of the USA's medal haul, correctly divining that we'd won the most. Then he read the rest of the top five medal-winning countries. He claimed that "Austria" was fifth with 38 medals.

Close. Austria won three medals -- one silver and two bronze -- and was tied for 41st. The Austrians won medals for swimming, kayaking and judo. What the DJ meant to say was "Australia," the only country that's also a continent. The Aussies had 38 -- 11 gold, 13 silver and 14 bronze. Australians took home 20 medals in swimming alone. If I knew name of the station, I'd send these numbskulls an atlas and an almanac.

First thing tomorrow, I'm going to the library to get some books on tape. Maybe a history of Australia. Or a shorter work on Austrian Olympic heroes.

Add "editing" to my list of worries

John Tierney of The New York Times recently wrote an article titled "10 things to scratch from your worry list." What has me worried is how this column got past the copy desk -- it's full of half-truths and misused statistics. Daniel Luzer of Mother Jones picks Tierney's column apart piece by piece. Although Tierney supplied some of the facts, he left out some key particulars that might have yielded a more helpful column. This story wasn't written on deadline, so the desk certainly had time to check the facts. Even more disturbing is the fact that Tierney's piece was in the Science section, which should be full of editors who understand how to decipher scientific studies. I wonder if this is a common problem at The Times or an anomaly.

It's important for journalists to interpret research so the reader can understand it. That sometimes means turning academic gobbledygook into English. It also means putting the statistics into context. What does the science mean to the average reader? To do this well, you have to understand the basics of scientific research. Was the study conducted properly? If you don't know what to look for, you can't help readers very much. If you're like many journalists and have an aversion to math, check out Robert Niles' guide to common statistical terms. It's a good introduction.

Remember, if you don't understand something, your readers might not, either. If you're unsure, ask. Better to be embarrassed in private than to get something ridiculously wrong in the mass media.