4 ms·
Ideally, but AFAICT that's not how it works. I have given a number of interviews to "Science" journalists, in two occasions even for science-focused publicatio
by ke88y 3y ago
Ideally, but AFAICT that's not how it works.
I have given a number of interviews to "Science" journalists, in two occasions even for science-focused publications. In each case I began the interview by asking the journalist to tell me about their coursework and self-study background so I can be sure to meet them where they are. In only one case have I met a science reporter who I'd consider minimally competent to report on science -- rather than eg write puff pieces -- and that reporter was educated in Europe.
- Given_47 3y agoYea that’s my main frustration with overall journalism. The one subject where I’d consider myself in the 99th percentile of knowledge (more of a reflection of the sample) is basketball and it drives me up a wall the number of Medill type, classically trained journalists who write about a thing they barely understand. It’s such a disservice to the audience and borderline blatant misinformation
- ricksunny 3y agoYes, and Ashley Rindsberg covers the science-writer / sci-journo divide well, a divide which I was not hip to prior: "The deeper phenomenon at work, however, is that in the U.S. a large number of professionals who cover science for general readers and for news publications like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal are not—and do not pretend to be—journalists per se. They are science writers whose field is science communications—a distinction with a huge difference. They see their role as translating the lofty work of pure science for a general audience, rather than as professional skeptics whose job is to investigate the competing interests, claims, and billion-dollar funding streams in the messy world of all-too-human scientists." https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/treason-science-journals https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/treason-sci...