5 ms·
No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist. Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
by Swizec 11y ago
No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist.
Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- chris_wot 11y agoWhich assumes scientists are utterly incapable of communicating with anyone other than other scientists.
- Swizec 11y agoI think it instead assumes that journalists will do anything to sell more papers. Regardless of what the scientists actually say.
- chris_wot 11y agoSo a media officer won't do any good then.
- evgen 11y agoActually it can, because if the media officer becomes the gateway then the reporters are forced into an iterated game with someone who knows them compared to ranging the herd of scientists looking for PR and hoping to pick off the weak and inexperienced.
- chris_wot 11y agoIf they are that interested in reporting a slanted story, a media officer isn't going to help.
- snowwrestler 11y agoIs it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science? If so, why not just manage the reporters directly? Every science news story could be reviewed by a central government office prior to publication, to make sure it's accurate. Of course, the reviews would be done by political appointees and their staff, not the scientists themselves since they have a conflict of interest, it being their research and all. This would never fly, of course. Canada has at least some semblance of freedom of the press. But for some reason the exact same system, applied to the scientists themselves, was OK?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Is it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science? I would say it is certainly part of the government's job to see to it that the public (including the media, who are simply members of the public who happen to exercise the freedom of the press) receives, when receiving information directly from the government, accurate information about things that the government does, including science. > If so, why not just manage the reporters directly? Because while it is the government's obligation to insure that the information it (through its officers and employees) provides to the public (including the media) is accurate and presented appropriately considering the direct audience, it has a different role with regard to information shared about government by members of the public, including the media.
- snowwrestler 11y agoI agree that the government should try to provide accurate information. Who better to do that than the scientist who actually conducted the research? That's what made this muzzle rule so egregious: it so obviously broke the process that would provide the most accurate information.