[Aqueous]

But journalists are journalists. They have to have a superficial acquaintance with a large number of subjects that is at least mostly accurate. What you've taken years to learn they only have the luxury of a two week or three week deadline to learn. The reason they are not experts in your field is because, well, they are not experts in your field, and they have the unenviable task of communicating difficult subject matter about which they are not an expert to the general public in a short amount of time.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the news is mostly inaccurate. We just subject material about subject matter we know to a higher threshold of scrutiny than material about subject matter we don't know. We tend to see the inaccuracies as crowding out the accuracies because, thanks to our precise technical knowledge, not getting it exactly right is the same as getting it completely wrong. But to the layman, this is not true. 85% right is not the same as completely wrong and completely useless. 90% right is a good try, not a worthless hack pontificiating about a subject matter he could never possibly in a million years actually understand.

As usual it's all relative. But let's not let our cognitive biases make us too cynical. People generally are trying their best.

[pgcsmd]

Fair point - it's easy for us to rant at journalists without thinking about how difficult their job is.