[actuallyalys]

>For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science...the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about. I think many (maybe not enough, for sure) don't see 'journalists' as scientific experts. For your Sanjay Guptas it may be true, but he's not a true journalist .

Yeah, this seems dubious to me. For one thing, I think people are plenty interested in pop sci books written by experts—hence all the books by doctors that include "MD" after their name on the cover. Of course, sometimes the MD doesn't indicate expertise in the topic they're writing in, but I suspect a book marketed as "pediatrician and pediatrics researcher Dr. So-and So writes about [childhood health topic]" would probably do better than "Dr. So-and-So, MD, writes about [childhood health topic]."

For another thing, there are other plausible explanations than a preference for elites—journalists are more experienced at writing for a general audience and they may have more connections to mass market publishers (rather than academic publishers).

I'd also argue communicating science is a separate skill from doing science. I think all scientists have at least a modicum of skill at communicating science to their peers, but journalists can very well have more experience in communicating science to the public than scientists. It's confusing since Hanson acknowledges communication as a kind of expertise when he refers to journalists as "news experts" elsewhere in the post.