4 ms·

Gell-mann Amnesia : https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-

• mratsim 6y ago
  I'm surprised they don't even get the show business right, I thought many publications were owned or actually in the show business and so they would have many subject matter experts available.
  • the-dude 6y ago
    The have long found out, it does not matter.
• mattkrause 6y ago
  This always bugs me, because “science” is a giant spectrum of fields from astronomy to zoology. Nobody knows even a small portion of it, and yet we expect a few journalists to cover all of it, often on tight deadlines[0]. Politics is probably closer to many journalists’ backgrounds, and it changes slower—-last week’s background helps with this week’s scandal too. [0] The impetus for most articles is usually the publication of a new paper, but this always seems weird because it’s really more of a hook: papers are almost always incremental progress on a problem and most of the article ends up being background and context anyway.
  • arkades 6y ago
    As you pointed out in your footnote, science is a bad topic for journalism, intrinsically. Something like Scientific American is about as good as it gets for lay audiences - solicited longform articles from the relevant experts, meant for a general audience.