A personal note about this blog

Roger Scime | Critical Journalism Blog

Fractured

I would assume that some of you have noticed that this blog has often diverted from its stated purpose as being “The Critical Journalism Blog,” into areas involving politics, personal opinions, cultural trends, and even business. There is a reason for that, one which it is difficult for me to control: I am a lifelong sufferer of ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, sometimes jokingly referred to as ADOS, or: Attention Deficit . . . Oh, shiny!

Approximately 4 percent of the population suffers from this very real affliction, and I am one of them. When on my meds, I tend to do just fine, but when off them I tend to be easily distracted from one subject to another. I also tend to be impulsive and lack patience. These are all symptoms of ADHD, and most of the time the results are relatively innocuous. In fact, they often lead me to periods of extreme creativity, as they have done other successful individuals. Thus, the slogan: “It’s not a disability, it’s a superpower.”

Lately, I haven’t been taking my prescribed medications: Adderall, amphetamine salts, dextroamphetamine, and Vyvanse due to their high costs and lack of insurance. However, through a patient assistance program offered by one of the manufacturers, I expect to be back on Vyvanse by this time next week. At that time, I plan to refocus this blog on Critical Journalism, and to separate my posts on other topics to new areas of the blogsite.

As I inferred previously, ADHD doesn’t always mean having to say, “You’re sorry.” In fact, for most of my life it’s been a boon and has, in fact made that life far more interesting than it might have been otherwise.

I just thought you might like to know.

 

Do you see what you really see? Or, what you expect to see?

Getting it wrong | Roger Scime | Critical Journalism Blog

Take a moment to read what’s in the three triangles above, then read the rest of the story.

I once knew a television reporter who told me about a feature she was writing: The story had to do with corruption in a union local to which we had both belonged at one time. She told me she had been given some financial documents the previous evening that seemed to prove it, and that she was going to run with a story to beat that afternoon’s deadline (and the competition).

Knowing that this reporter’s math skills were as challenged as mine, I asked her if she had shown the documents to a financial analyst or other reputable expert before concluding that the union was corrupt. She told me she hadn’t, but that it was obvious from what she had read that something fishy was afoot.

Then I asked her how much time she’d spent going over the papers, herself. “About an hour,” she replied. I looked at stack in her hand: about an inch’s worth of complex financial spreadsheets.

“Do you think that was enough,” I asked. She said she just knew that the union was corrupt, and she was happy to finally have the proof. She’d skimmed enough of the report to nail the SOBs once and for all.

So, she took her story to her editor and explained her findings. Her boss—wise man that he was—had the station’s financial correspondent vet the reporter’s documents—and subsequently spiked the story.

It seems that she had made a major error when skimming the financials: the printer’s ink cartridges had run low and what appeared to be red ink was actually black, and vice-versa. Consequently, she had assumed that the union was running a deficit and hiding the fact from its members. Because of her past experience with the local, she had expected to find corruption, when none actually existed.

The above is apocryphal: No such reporter existed, nor was any such story contemplated. I just wanted to illustrate the “tyranny of expectations.” The reporter saw only what she wanted to see, not what was actually in the documents.

Here is that image again:

What do they say? | roger scime | critical journalism blog

What do they say?

Done? Okay, now here’s what they really say:

  1. King of the the Jews
  2. Wind in the the willows
  3. Paris in the the spring

So, how did you you do? Did you see what you saw—or what you thought you saw?