3 ms·
> What the study exposed is that science journalists, whose literal job is to understand this stuff and explain it to the general public, suck at their jobs. I
by meowkit 4y ago
> What the study exposed is that science journalists, whose literal job is to understand this stuff and explain it to the general public, suck at their jobs.
I was under their impression the job of a journalist was to get attention of readers to generate ad and subscription revenue.
Not that I disagree with the claim that they should explain things to a general public to accomplish the above, but that's not how our system is currently set up. If doing a poor job makes them more money - that's the real issue.
- orzig 4y agoI’m related to a well-known science journalist. They absolutely consider it their job to verify. There are irresponsible people who try to cram in more visible output by skimping on less visible quality. Everyone else grumbles about those reporters behind their back, like a developer whose code is undocumented and insecure. Setting incentives to deter that behavior is management’s responsibility, as in any industry. Since it’s an open secret in the business: The New York Times Science section has failed to do this in notable situations over the last decade.
- coldtea 4y ago>I was under their impression the job of a journalist was to get attention of readers to generate ad and subscription revenue. That's because cynicism and acceptance of brokeness has become the norm. But while journalism did start out as the "wild west" of yellow press and cheap wriging, and while it's that way today... ... there was also a period of many decades where people expected better of journalists, and they did get considerable better results...