But especially skeptical of pundits like Nate Silver.
Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
11–20 of 385 posts
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#12I wonder what he'd have to say about the article published on FiveThirtyEight in May of 2020 that prominently cites one of the authors of this very paper [0]. I don't think he was very heavily involved in the science-reporting side of fivethirtyeight (he's always very obviously been more on the sports and politics side), and since at this point since he's no longer affiliated with the site, it sort of doesn't matter, but I'm also pretty sure that he didn't just come to the belief espoused in this post recently. I wonder if there were ever internal discussions about the piece.
[0]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-scientists-think-th...
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#13One thing that dulls my interest in this debate is my doubt that it will ever get “resolved”. We dont have sequence samples at the time of covids origin. China is never going to cooperate on giving more circumstantial evidence. So we cant really do any phylogenetic or epidemiological analysis at the level of spatial precision that this would require. The data is extremely fuzzy where it needs to be sharp. In my opinion, this is the real thing stalling this debate, not politics.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#14Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…
[deleted]
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#15[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#16Personally, I never accepted that a lab leak was out of the question. I simply didn't think it mattered during the early days of the pandemic response (to the everyday citizen) since it didn't influence safe hygiene and social distancing. It was used by conservative media as something for their base to get mad about and be mildly racist about (Wuhan flu).
What was more egregious was Dr. Fauci's assertion that masking wouldn't help slow the spread, which he likely knew to be false and had said so to prevent a run on N95s. I get it, but that is a huge undermining of public trust.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#17Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…
In the past, wasn't it normal for journalists to have a particular specialization (even if that's not the _only_ thing they did), like "science reporter" or something? It is obviously impossible for every reporter to become an expert on every single topic that they might ever cover, but it is not unreasonable at all to get enough of a background on a topic that you cover regularly to be able to ask intelligent questions.
If news organizations were serious about this, they might actively look for people who _do_ have greater amounts of training/experience in a given field.
It may be true that in the current journalism paradigm the kind of skepticism called for is impossible, but it is absolutely not true that this is a fundamental state of journalism and that reporters could never become capable of doing it.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#18[flagged]
[flagged]
Your comment reminds me of this line from the submission:
"There’s also a generational divide in journalism, with younger journalists tending to be more openly left/progressive than their older peers — and tending to be more Manichean in dividing the world between good and evil rather than proceeding from the notion that people and news stories are complicated and it’s not particularly their job to pass moral judgment."
This is probably true of the younger generations in general, not just journalists.
Sadly any attempt at communicating a nuanced view makes you subject to vicious attacks from binary thinkers, who often miss the point and derail the discussion.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#19[flagged]
What was the issue with COVID?
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#20Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…
You don’t judge a source by reading the source itself.
Usually you do so by considering the context in which the source is made and then you might consult someone who can read the source (who also needs to be judged based on the context in which they are giving you advice).