| One of the main problems with the media in general (I know I shouldn't generalise but sometimes the urge if just too strong) is that the don't know anything beyond, at best, GCSE Science. The trouble is that with a GCSE in science you automatically become the science correspodant and are duty bound to report it in a sensationalised manner - as you will realise they excel at that.
The synopsis is the most you can expect to get them to read and that has to be in Janet and John style writing. Apologies to anyone called Janet and / or John.
If the author of a report has a particular ax to grind, e.g. Andrew Watson who started the MMR debate - they are given credance far beyond that which is reasonable - never mind what evidence there is. Other "experts" are more like rent a quote charecters - this is true outside the science areas as well.
The main problem for science is that the reports tend to be rather dry and fact laden. Too many facts seem to upset some journalists.
PS - I am not a journalist
Last edited by Jay_Benson : 21-10-07 at 11:03 PM.
Reason: Because I cannot spell
|