…there’s probably no field of journalism that’s less skeptical, less critical, less given to investigative work, and less independent of its sources than science reporting. At even the most respected publications, science journalists tend to position themselves as translators, churning the technical language of scientific papers into summaries that are accessible to the public. The assumption is that the source text they’re translating–the original scientific research–comes to them as unimpeachable fact.
Flashback: “Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It’s Seth again.”
Most ‘journalists’ are lib-arts grads; very few come into journalism from a technical field. Most don’t have the technical intelligence to understand science or the scientific method. Like most lib-arts people they are inherently naive and gullible so it’s easy for scientists, even bad scientists, to bamboozle them.
“The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
Yes….journalists SHOULD hold scientists accountable. The problem is that most journalists don’t have the brains of a gnat and are easily fooled….especially when they are indoctrinated into politically correct BS from day one.
Me thinks ‘Seth’ is planning to write a large Catastrophic Climate Change Book- $59.95, Publishers Clearing House.
Great Idea Seth.
British Pensioners will enjoy putting it in the fireplace to try and stay warm..
2016 is the Hottest Year Ever…
The invention of anthropogenic global warming solved the acid rain problem.
From the Pacific Standard article: “When a reporter gets hoodwinked by a source, she does not imply that something in the fabric of reality has shifted. She explains that she was tricked.”
Great quote: It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Look, what’s going on here is threefold:
1. Ubiquitous access to virtually unlimited information has made stupid people into “experts” unable to admit error because computers make smart people smarter and dumb people dumber.
2. Due to competition, traditional news outlets are starving for big, compelling stories at the same time that reporting standards have declined.
3. Due to “Social Justice” revenge patrols policing WrongThought, it’s dangerous to point out incompetence.
These three things are made much worse by the internet and ‘yesterday’s lie doesn’t matter because by the time everyone notices, tomorrow’s is already here’.
Some good points however the internet has also been a socially changing communication tool for those who don’t use it foolishly. This site’s, among other great ones, as an example.
There’s also Rathergate that put a crack in the facade of MSM, then WUWT on climategate.
Double edged sword perhaps?
I see it as still evolving. The fact that we commoners can freely speak to one another instantly, globally alarms the ones who lie the most the UN & Co.. Why they are taking control of it where ever they can.
“‘The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.'”
In that statement, Heinlein merely exposes the sublime arrogance of the technocrats who, eager as ever to poke fun at the daffier arts disciplines, conveniently overlook the shortcomings of their own ideology: scientism.
Being a scientist does not ipso facto make a person more rational than anyone else and science – particularly the really deep and theoretical variety – can get pretty damned fuzzy pretty damned quickly.
I rather prefer the honesty of the late physicist Richard Feynman:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
(By the way, this also nicely sums up the key weakness of science journalism.)
I do agree that overall, the internet is a great thing, but remember Brandolini’s Law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
Just listened to an old radio show “Dimension X”. Anyone interested in good, old fashioned sci-fi and fantasy from the 50s might want to look it up, and the shows included stories from “new” writers like Heinlein, Asimov and Bradbury.
This particular show was about a man who could shrink things, and for years tried to get the railways to buy his technology to save money. Everyone thought he was nuts, so he gave some “freelance” demonstrations.
The City Editor of a newspaper gets a hot tip from a reporter, holds the presses, then gets lambasted by the editor-in-chief (who married the publisher’s daughter…), and demoted.
To Science Editor. Of the Sunday Supplement.
So, even in 1950, the joke was in…
“The future of Science is to important to be determined by Scientists” Motto.
The so called Science Journalists knowingly falsify ALL science for political action & wealth.
They know who they are!. The gullible public are pathetic to look for innocent reasons.
When is the last time any journalist got anything but a D- in science?
They generally go with the finger painting elective and skip the science classes.