4 ms·
> I've never seen someone attack the scientific conclusions on the basis that they're being misreported by media Well I've seen examples of bad, exaggerated, s
by bluekeybox 15y ago
> I've never seen someone attack the scientific conclusions on the basis that they're being misreported by media
Well I've seen examples of bad, exaggerated, sometimes completely misleading media reporting of scientific findings nearly everywhere. Now I have a scientific background and I can tell that those reports should be taken with a grain of salt, but how can people without such background filter out the signal from the noise?
I bet that many people assume that a reporter publishing something in "The Daily Galaxy" is actually the scientist. How would they ever trust him or her?
- rauljara 15y agoAh. This makes more sense. In this comment you seem to be arguing that some mistrust of science is caused by poor reporting. Which I wouldn't disagree with. From your first comment, I thought you were saying that there was no mistrust of science, just of reporters, from this line "The perceived distrust of scientists by the public could well be a distrust of media reporting of most issues in general, not necessarily a lack of belief in the scientific method." Apologies if I had misunderstood.