12 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSome journalists pretend that they know what they're writing about, in this case about science, when they infact doesn't know much, and therefore might bring the wrong impression to the public with unforseeable result.
No, they're journalists.
Why?
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen you put quotation marks around a scientist's words and insert them in an article, you are signposting them as the scientist's words. Yes, I remember that discussion very well. Let's not go there.
Because wolf keeps referring to a journalist's words as scientists' words. I was also reminded of the "time doesn't exist" discussion we had.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasOr it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
Some journalists pretend that they know what they're writing about, in this case about science, when they infact doesn't know much, and therefore might bring the wrong impression to the public with unforseeable result.
13 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course, I don't deny that. But we cannot presume ad hoc that journalists always know what they are writing, and we cannot presume ad hoc that the public always can tell good scientific journalists from lesser good.
Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
The interesting question is what to do with those hournalists who aren't good in science but have an convincing ability with the pen. They can do much damage when they are read by the part of public that cannot differ them from good journalists who actually know what they are writing about.
[Edit] I just realized that I answerd the same posting twice. Oh well...
13 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasLately I've been seeing people quote journalists who are paraphrasing scientists as if the quote came from the scientist herself.
Of course, I don't deny that. But we cannot presume ad hoc that journalists always know what they are writing, and we cannot presume ad hoc that the public always can tell good scientific journalists from lesser good.
The interesting question is what to do with those hournalists who aren't good in science but have an convincing ability with the pen. Th ...[text shortened]... are writing about.
[Edit] I just realized that I answerd the same posting twice. Oh well...