NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week, I got an object lesson on how preconceptions color our interpretation of the news. <snip back story> We arrived at our breakfast appointment, an informal gathering of policy-makers interested in my topic. After I was introduced as an expert on marriage and sexuality, one of them burst out, “did you see the new study showing that more teens are engaging in oral sex than ever before?” No, says I, wondering which left field that information flew out of.

So he showed me the newspaper headline, “Half of all Teens Have Had Oral Sex.” I scanned the story, and found the same institution had published this study: the National Center for Health Statistics. Then I noticed, I was reading The Washington Post, the more liberal beltway paper.

I could hardly contain myself: I just about knocked the orange juice out of the waitress’s hands. “I bet this is the same study. Same data, different headline.” I made a mental note to check this out when I got home to California later that day.

<snip>

So what did this study actually say? Well, with 56 pages and 29 tables, it said a lot. Everything reported in the two Washington papers was accurate, but each reporter picked out results they found particularly significant. In fairness to the Washington Post, the press release on the study did emphasize teen participation in oral sex. An increasing number of teens appear to be using oral sex as a birth control method. Experts quoted by the Post are rethinking their “safe sex” messages since oral sex spreads some sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, herpes, an the human papillomavirus. ...
<snip>
Meanwhile, on the Left Coast the LA Times tells us what it found significant in the report. “Study finds big rise in female gay sex.” I rest my case.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printMorse20050926.shtml

Caviat: Yes, I know this comes from "Townhall.com" and has it's own conservative slant. However, the important (quoted) bits remain true and interesting.

Maybe someday we'll get back to reporters that report, (rather than edetorialize through selection bias) but I'm not hopeful. :(

i guess i missed the problem

did the guy suggest what the headline/emphasis SHOULD have been in his opinion?

thats what a reporter DOES, s/he reports what s/he considers to be the most important/significant/interesting/shocking part of a story.

so 2 papers decided to emphasize different aspects of a story about teen sex. whats the big deal?

One thing I'm interested in knowing is whether the study actually found that the reason more teens were having oral sex was because it was deemed "safer". With the prevalence of condoms the real reason teens are having oral sex is probably not because they worry about pregnancy/STDs and more that they enjoy it separately, perhaps for the power aspect.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I will say this. When I was a teenager, I certainly did not need an excuse for oral sex! And btw to the op, I didnt miss your message.

I think that news as we knew it up through the 80's is dead. Its now nothing but partisan hackery on both sides, with the few honest ones drowned in the waves of politics. It used to be about reading the news. Now it's all about finding the news you want to hear. Sad but true.

i guess i missed the problem

did the guy suggest what the headline/emphasis SHOULD have been in his opinion? It was less the Headline than the entire focus of each article. The "Liberal" paper focused on the data that had to do with teen sex/promiscuity and the "Conservative" paper focused on the data that showed that fewer adults are sleeping around.
thats what a reporter DOES, s/he reports what s/he considers to be the most important/significant/interesting/shocking part of a story. Yes, and I find that sad. I want my news to be news, not selection bias.
so 2 papers decided to emphasize different aspects of a story about teen sex. whats the big deal?The big deal is simply in noting that it is being done, by whom, and for what agenda. Understanding when, ideologically why, and more importantly how - someone is trying to manipulate your opinion is a good thing.

My opinion on'ris subject, is pretty simple yet conglomerated into many stuff.

I don't usually care if teen's (voluntarily, of course) do oral sex on each other's - as'rit's doesn't create a "adultish"-situation, a.k.a., a pregnancy ;)

Sure. Rape is always bad, and we KNOW that, but what the hell - They could do blowjobs wherever and whenever for what it matters. "Doggie" is another thang. I don't think it's really that sexual intercourse that has any "consequence's". What's to say someone over 18 has more rights to do it than "kids" (I doubt it's healthy for those non-teen's, however) under? It's not like they end up with the responsability of a baby, no. If you think so, you've probably watched too much Alien's movies.

And, aside from that, there's a plus; You get alot of protein :P