|
|
|
|
|
|
by oakwhiz
3004 days ago
|
|
|
>how often did i read a piece of journalism outside my area of expertise with equally lazy mistakes, without noticing them? This is often referred to as the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect": "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know." |
|
|
A reporter not understanding what a physicist explained does not mean they lack the ability to understand what a policeman or politician told them.
A reporter not being able to explain a theory does not mean they cannot correctly report on the plain facts of a murder or a policy proposal.
In such cases the risks are inferences drawn from the (lack of) facts, the reliability of the source (material), etc. Every kind of article requires scepticism of different aspects. Just ensuring you don't suffer from Gell-Mann Amnesia is woefully insufficient.