| I'm retired but I am a scientist. I am technically a mathematician, but I still apply the method and use the philosophy of science in many areas of my life. I say that because I think it gives some color to my next comment. I have some very, very strong opinions about science journalism and the changes I've seen in the past thirty years. However, I fear my attempt to express those opinions would be sufficiently off-topic and incomplete, as my complaints are many, varied, and long. There is still good science journalism, it exists. It just isn't all that popular. It is quite possible to have good science journalism that appeals even to moderately educated people. I know this to be true because I have seen it. I often lament the death of the ideal which is that of the citizen scientist. It is through gritted teeth that I submit the ideal has been suplanted by citizen journalist. That is wonderful, at least in theory. However, it seems that it has resulted in fewer people paying for quality journalism and it also seems likely that this is a primary cause for the reduction in quality. It doesn't help that the evening news now competes with reality television. In a world where deep thoughts are limited to 140 characters, sensationalism has prospered at the cost of depth. I ain't even started... I can rant for hours about the state of scientific journalism, or journalism in general. The lack of quality editing only compounds it. The effect this has had on education and scientific literacy is troubling. We have a populace that can more readily recognize a Kareashian than they can an equation. It isn't limited to one age group, side of the political spectrum, or the population densities of their respective communities. No, no it is not... However, I suspect that my rant would just be preaching to the choir. I strongly suspect we are in full agreement. I don't suppose you have a solution? This is actually edited for brevity. I removed several paragraphs. They digressed too much, even for me. |