3 ms·
> But science is different for sure and the journalism on it sucks because getting to the point where you even understand the problem might require years of pre
by Planktonne 4y ago
> But science is different for sure and the journalism on it sucks because getting to the point where you even understand the problem might require years of preparation.
This is not at all unique to science; people tend to assume this about their own fields, not realising that it actually applies to most of them.
- ghaff 4y ago"Terrible" reportage can indeed mean getting quotes wrong and basic established facts incorrect. But it also covers simplifying things for a (somewhat educated) lay audience, making decisions about what to include and exclude, and including perspectives that some experts may take issue with. Certainly, it would be nice if many journalists had a better background in what they're writing about. But it's also a case that experts can have unreasonable expectations about the depth and nuance of something written for the more or less general public.
- mattkrause 4y agoI think the nature of science reporting exacerbates it. The "Science Section" of your local paper covers an absolutely massive range of topics: astronomy one week, zoology the next, and everything in between. Nobody--literally nobody--has the breadth of expertise to do all of those fields justice. The rest of the paper has a more consistent focus. If you covered last year's debate over gun control, that background carries over to this week's debate. The players change slowly too--some of the folks in Congress have been there for decades.