4 ms·

there's still strong points and week points in journalism and journalists. science and tech journalism are definitely less likely to tell a compelling story wi

there's still strong points and week points in journalism and journalists. science and tech journalism are definitely less likely to tell a compelling story with the existing facts and coherently. what's more likely happening is dumbing down certain expert information to the perceived idiots.

caseysoftware 3y ago
> * science and tech journalism are definitely less likely to tell a compelling story with the existing facts and coherently.* Why do you believe this is limited to these two areas?
- actinium226 3y ago
  Because science and tech journalism requires a certain knowledge of science and technology, but people who want to go into journalism generally don't study those topics and aren't interested in them.
  - tomjakubowski 3y ago
    Science journalists often do have a scientific background, like Ed Yong for example (MPhil Biochemistry).
    - actinium226 3y ago
      There are some great ones out there, particularly at ArsTechnica, but there are also journalists working at mainstream newspapers who are sent/told to cover some tech/science thing and presumably they do their best but they end up out of their depth and just put something together to meet the deadline.
      - caseysoftware 3y ago
        ^ This. My wife was a high level reporter in DC covering the White House and even traveling with POTUS at times (locally via motorcade, never on Air Force One). I can't count the number of times she'd call and say "I have a 3pm deadline.. what do you know about X?" The number of reporters who have special training or specific background within a beat are exceptionally small. They're there but they are NOT the norm.
est31 3y ago
I have seen some political journalism first hand (in a micro cosm, not the big world stage) and I saw how wrong journalists can get details sometimes. That was even without assuming a bias of the journalists involved, which is more often present than not.

caseysoftware 3y ago

> * science and tech journalism are definitely less likely to tell a compelling story with the existing facts and coherently.* Why do you believe this is limited to these two areas?

actinium226 3y ago
Because science and tech journalism requires a certain knowledge of science and technology, but people who want to go into journalism generally don't study those topics and aren't interested in them.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  Science journalists often do have a scientific background, like Ed Yong for example (MPhil Biochemistry).
  - actinium226 3y ago
    There are some great ones out there, particularly at ArsTechnica, but there are also journalists working at mainstream newspapers who are sent/told to cover some tech/science thing and presumably they do their best but they end up out of their depth and just put something together to meet the deadline.
    - caseysoftware 3y ago
      ^ This. My wife was a high level reporter in DC covering the White House and even traveling with POTUS at times (locally via motorcade, never on Air Force One). I can't count the number of times she'd call and say "I have a 3pm deadline.. what do you know about X?" The number of reporters who have special training or specific background within a beat are exceptionally small. They're there but they are NOT the norm.

est31 3y ago

I have seen some political journalism first hand (in a micro cosm, not the big world stage) and I saw how wrong journalists can get details sometimes. That was even without assuming a bias of the journalists involved, which is more often present than not.