> But issues are not simple and journalists are, in general, not qualified to meaningfully interpret the things they're reporting on The general public is even

> But issues are not simple and journalists are, in general, not qualified to meaningfully interpret the things they're reporting on The general public is even less qualified to interpret things being reported on. Jouralists who just repeat the press releases that each party gives are I believe a net negative. They set themselves up to be propaganda mouth pieces. > Meteorological forecasts are pretty much meaningless at the 20 day level. Should our journalist mention this? Is failing to omit it misleading? At some point certain topics are maybe just not worth reporting on at all. If there's no way to make a 20 day prediction beyond a wild guess, then why bother reporting that there's even a disagreement? The report at this point is "Two people make different guesses as to the value of a random variable." It serves no purposes to report, and only creates a debate on a topic that there shouldn't be a debate about.