Today's Obligatory Reading of the Day is this essay by Kagro X:
Have you ever read, seen, or heard a mainstream media account of some event in which you've been personally involved? Or in which you have developed, under whatever circumstances, some sort of expertise? Ninety-nine times out of hundred, people with that sort of personal or specialized knowledge of the events covered will come away with some sort of substantial complaint about the quality of the coverage...
-------snip-----------
Why, though, should the general audience settle for "sufficient?" Or perhaps more to the point, why should audience members with specific knowledge of the nuances, shortcomings, omissions, etc. have to settle for it, or keep it to themselves? As I said above, the Internet and the blogosphere now make it impossible to predict with certainty where true expertise lies....
Read the whole thing....
- Log in to post comments
Part of the problem is just intellectual laziness. There is also the unrealistic expectation of every writer having the background knowledge of the subject like a Zimmer or a Mooney do. But I think the insidious part of the equation is the pandering to the biases of the target audience for the purpose of boosting ratings, and allowing this to surpass journalistic integrity as the top priority.
Faux News is of course the prime example, but they are only the worst of the bunch. Look at CNN's much ballyhooed initial discussion about atheists with no atheist panel members. It is no coincidence that most of their viewers are antagonistic towards atheists, and are likely to change the channel if the atheist viewpoint is allowed to be given full flower. Or consider Larry "The Monkey" King still asking in the 21st century "if we evolved from monkeys, than why are there still monkeys?" What's more likely? That Larry is unaware of how stupid this question is? Or that Larry knows full well his viewers want to hear such paplum?
Science Avenger said, "But I think the insidious part of the equation is the pandering to the biases of the target audience for the purpose of boosting ratings, and allowing this to surpass journalistic integrity as the top priority."
BINGO! Writers can do research, after all.
I spent 20 years in the Deep Space Network as we discovered the wacky magnetic field of Uranus, the unexpected high white clouds at Neptune, a volcano on Io, the first detection of the heliopause, the first look at the Sun from above and below the ecliptic, an armada of five spacecraft making their Halley encouter, the first asteroid rendezvous, and first comet landing, the first clear look at the surface of Venus where there were way too few craters and hence the surface must have once turned molten, the discovery that volcanic rocks are lots stronger if there is no water, the landing on Mars of Pathfinder and later the Mars Exploration Rovers, and so on.
What did the press report on? Excerpts from the press releases from the public information office -- basically cut and paste. Even the interviews were of stuff already covered in the releases.
It's institutionalized bigotry. Journalists as a group hold to the proposition that they are a special breed, and everyone else is a hopeless and hapless fool needing special protection from the evils of the world. It is simple contempt.
And it's not just science they willingly misrepresent, but most any field of human endeavour. Consider how they cover other matters. Religion, history, current events. All are given the slant they think their audience prefers. Whenever you see something in the news, check for opposing viewpoints. And consider this, that what people you disagree with are saying may well be more accurate than what the media is saying.
Be wary of accepting what your enemies tell you. Be especially wary of accepting what your friends tell you.