Originally posted by Bosse de Nage No, they're journalists.
Why?
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung 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.
When 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.
Originally posted by FabianFnas 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.
Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung 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.
Your OP in your latest dolphin thread for example. Are you even reading what I write? You're so aggressive toward me but you don't seem to even have read what I've written!
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage When 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.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Or it might not. The public also might be intelligent enough to treat journalism as journalism.
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. 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...
Originally posted by FabianFnas 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...
Lately I've been seeing people quote journalists who are paraphrasing scientists as if the quote came from the scientist herself.
Journalists Are Not Scientific Authorities
11 Feb '10 20:072 edits
Reveal Hidden Content
Back to Top