this is largely a reaction to the old stereotypical attitude towards science: i.e. nerdy and uncool and for boring people. news sources - in some ways admirably

this is largely a reaction to the old stereotypical attitude towards science: i.e. nerdy and uncool and for boring people. news sources - in some ways admirably - have tried to make it more interesting for the general public. they've achieved this, but at a pretty high cost, which are the points laid out in this article. considering the size of the scientific community (i.e. people who could tell you what a confidence interval is) vs the size of the general news-reading population, I'd suggest that the likely alternative to a lot of the science reporting referred to in the article is not better science reporting, but less of it overall. sadly, these companies are simply meeting a demand from a relatively uneducated population a large proportion of whom's brains will switch off at the sight of the words "confidence interval" my suggested solution to this is more public investment in the news industry. more grants for independent journalism