September's Topic: Science Journalists and the articles they don't read
How "first to report" and "infotainment" science damages the way that true science gets reported.
Modern Discontent is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A few days ago I put out an open thread about the difficulties of reading journals and provided a poll, with one question asking what journalists/reporters can do to improve their reporting.
As of now the current 1st place response was to speak in laymen’s terms more often. That’s certainly an issue I have with how I report, although I generally make the argument that laymen’s terms can lose out on a lot of the meat of a study when ideas and concepts must be boiled down.
However, I gave the option of “other” as a response and asked for an explanation.
Surprisingly, several people asked for something that really should be expected from science journalists in the first place-- that they read the damn studies that they cover!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Modern Discontent to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.