4 ms·
Are you implying that, historically, journalists either 1) had some basic education in what they are reporting about, or 2) actually wanted to educate themselve
by samhuk 4y ago
Are you implying that, historically, journalists either 1) had some basic education in what they are reporting about, or 2) actually wanted to educate themselves in what they are reporting about, and that today, increasingly, journalists don't or don't want to do either 1) or 2)?
That is, at it's core, saying that journalists are, on average, getting more and more stupid.
This seems a bit strange and unsubstantiated, but could very well be true. What would cause a gradual decrease in the intelligence of humanity's journalists?
Or are things like science just getting more complex (more specialized) that an average journalists requires "too much" time to educate themselves about. That would then mean they aren't getting less intelligent, per se...
- photochemsyn 4y agoMy point is that media owners and their pet editors don't want competent science journalists, they want compliant stenographers who will go to their assigned experts and repeat what they say. They don't want stories that will encourage their readers to engage in critical thinking. There are plenty of people who could do competent science (and other) journalism if that was the standard they were held to. Such work can still be found here and there, in specialty journals (Science and Nature news reports are often quite good), but it's increasingly rare in corporate media for the above reasons.