3 ms·
It is a justification. If newspapers were a public good, they could afford to write pieces that didn't necessarily land well with the public, but had more subst
by Qworg 8y ago
It is a justification. If newspapers were a public good, they could afford to write pieces that didn't necessarily land well with the public, but had more substance around the science.
While newspapers don't include the Kardashians in the war coverage, they DO include the Kardashians. War is very different from Science - it is straightforward, exciting to read about, and has an immediate human interest. Science is none of those things.
- jessriedel 8y agoYou aren't disputing whether it's a justification, you're disputing my empirical claim that newspapers leave the Kardashians out of war coverage for principled reasons. But we can just pick some other news topic that is also dry like science yet newspaper feel duty-bound (or shame-avoidance-driven) to not enhance with celebrity gossip. (Otherwise you're claiming that duty/shame play no role whatsoever in news coverage, which I think is clearly false and am not interested in arguing about.)
- Qworg 8y agoHopefully my tone didn't make it seem like I was spoiling for a fight - I don't know of a dry topic that's not enhanced with stories about the people involved in mainline journalism.
- jessriedel 8y agoThat's also not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are certain types of enhancements (Kardashians) which are considered unbecoming to discuss in certain serious topics (supreme court decisions). I think the list of eschewed enhancements for science should be expanded to include the type discussed in my top level comment.
- Viliam1234 8y agoThere is probably a balance in how much unbecoming things can you leave out of your newspaper before its readership drops so low that it goes bankrupt.