3 ms·

Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet r

Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet research have the same problem, and if battery capacity had doubled for every headline saying it had, we would be charging our phones once a year. But the science journalists argue that they're not lying, just picking the most interesting stories, and that otherwise no one would read them at all. If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. If they said science journalism needs reform - well, I'm sure you can find plenty of blog posts arguing this, but not a lot of media coverage.

macinjosh 7y ago
> If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. You're arguing the extremes here. Scientific organizations could easily publicize their displeasure with how their work is communicated to the public without calling the media fraudsters. Give me a break.
- comicjk 7y ago
  If you see smart people not doing something they could easily do, maybe it's not so easy? Example: the American Council on Science and Health put together a ranking of science journalism sources, putting Nature at the top, and Nature responded telling them they weren't helping. https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591 https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-eviden... I admit I'm speculating a bit when I try to explain why reforming science journalism is difficult, but I'm pretty sure empirically that it is difficult.
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    Not my problem.