But Maslin made an error that made my crankiness rear its ugly head. The reviewer chided both authors because they referred to the same story but told it in different ways. I kept waiting for Maslin to tell readers which retelling was correct. She didn't. In the journalism business, that's called a "hole" -- a question that should have been answered but wasn't. I also like to refer to it with the technical term "bad reporting."
The case in point involves a research study by Dan Ariely. According to Maslin, the books she reviewed had the story as follows:
According to “Cheap” he offered his subjects a choice between the 1-cent Kiss and a 26-cent Ferrero Rocher hazelnut. At those prices the test subjects were divided 40 percent to 40 percent, with 20 percent opting for neither. Then the prices came down by one penny each, and 90 percent of the subjects took the free chocolate. Only 10 percent chose the higher-priced brand.
In its “Free” version the non-Kiss candy is a Lindt truffle initially priced at 15 cents while the Kiss cost a penny; 73 percent of subjects chose the truffle and 27 percent picked the Kiss, with nobody abstaining. Then the prices were lowered by 1 cent each, and 69 percent of the subjects chose the free Kiss.So which story is correct? Well, after about five minutes of Google searching, I found out. The study, written by Kristina Shampanier and Nina Mazar, as well as Ariely, described TWO experiements. The first involved a Lindt truffle, as Anderson says, but he got the price wrong. It was originally 14 cents, not 15. The second involved a Ferrero Rocher, just as Shell said. And she got the prices right.
Good copy editors either send stories with holes back to the authors for fixing or fill the holes on their own. Today's lesson: Don't leave holes in stories. If you leave readers guessing after reading a story, they might not come back next time.
1 comment:
You are so right, Lynn! And you would think the copy editors at the NEW YORK TIMES would catch this.
Post a Comment