Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#71

Post by thorncorona »

mike_hearn wrote: post #65
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big 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…

They don't have to shoot for perfection. The bar has sunk so low even very basic techniques can yield huge improvements in trust: 1. Report the fact that disagreement exists. Phrased differently, stop taking academics at their word when they claim there's a consensus. Do some basic web searches to find people who disagree. Get quotes from them. Stress on the word people ; not just other academics but literally anyone…

> 1. Report the fact that disagreement exists. Phrased differently, stop taking academics at their word when they claim there's a consensus. Do some basic web searches to find people who disagree. Get quotes from them. Stress on the word people; not just other academics but literally anyone disagreeing on scientific grounds eliminates the claim of consensus. Bloggers are fine.

This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, etc.

> 2. READ the papers.

Literally nobody reads the papers. A huge amount of news isn't even investigated. A large number of news these days is regurgitated from other sources.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#72

Post by Given_47 »

ke88y wrote: post #22
MostlyStable wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 questi…

Ideally, but AFAICT that's not how it works. I have given a number of interviews to "Science" journalists, in two occasions even for science-focused publications. In each case I began the interview by asking the journalist to tell me about their coursework and self-study background so I can be sure to meet them where they are. In only one case have I met a science reporter who I'd consider minimally competent to repo…

Yea that’s my main frustration with overall journalism. The one subject where I’d consider myself in the 99th percentile of knowledge (more of a reflection of the sample) is basketball and it drives me up a wall the number of Medill type, classically trained journalists who write about a thing they barely understand. It’s such a disservice to the audience and borderline blatant misinformation

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#73

Post by ke88y »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big 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…

Most journalists aren't experts on the law, either. How do they report on court cases? They aren't experts on aviation safety. How do they report on airplane crashes? They aren't experts on economics. How do they report financial news? They're supposed to be experts at reporting , which works out to mean experts at finding out about topics that they don't already know about .

> Most journalists aren't experts on the law, either. How do they report on court cases?

Journalists have roughly the same undergraduate educational background as lawyers and receive a half-decent education on the high level basics of the American legal system in civics courses.

> They aren't experts on aviation safety. How do they report on airplane crashes?

Crashes themselves often don't require any amount of aviation expertise.

> They aren't experts on economics. How do they report financial news?

Mostly poorly, which is why eg Bloomberg's retail news business exists, and most of those folks have some financial background.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#76

Post by Spinnaker_ »

I don't think Journalists have the skills to be able to actually dig into and verify most types of science. So I don't think it's realistic to hold them to such a high standard.

But they absolutely do have the skills to shape the narrative. And In this case they failed spectacularly. Many seemed overly eager to attack and destroy any who came to a different conclusion. It seems like they took glee in it. Their behaviour was embarrassing, and there appears to have been very little acknowledgement or self reflection of this.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#77

Post by Given_47 »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #33
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big 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…

I'm not sure existing journalists could do it, but perhaps this can act as a call to action for a scientist to start a blog or YouTube channel that analyzes scientific discoveries, and/or fact checks existing journalists' interpretations of scientific literature.

I’m sure there r random blogs devoted to that lol. Which is y I aggressively bookmark niche sites cuz by definition gold mines r very much not discoverable

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#78

Post by legitster »

RyanAdamas wrote: post #58
legitster wrote: post #40

I respect this position on principal, but I also forget like we are equally glossing over the context in this specific case. In 2020, the lab-leak theory was specifically being promoted by people who were advancing the idea that Covid was a) an engineered bio-weapon b) required a national security response in lieu of a medical one. But if we really want to look back at 2020-2021, there were MUCH more egregious exampl…

Incorrect, the lab-leak theory was specifically disregarded using the well-poisoning methods you described as the blame would be shifted to a wild-goose chase. Considering China went through SARS 10 years previous with hundreds of millions of patients to examine, combined with the influx of viral research into the country after that period, it is by no means a stretch to assume duplicity was at hand. A for-profit med…

At the end of the day, no one really should have cared that much where Covid came from in 2020. The only people who really cared were people who were trying to win a game of political football. This is equally true with the scientists in the Lancet letter as it was with politicians trying to win a pissing match with China.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#79

Post by ctrlp »

Nate Silver fundamentally misunderstands his own role in the information ecosystem. He and other journalists are primarily votaries to the mainline political myths of our time. This idea that they should be skeptical is laughable on its face. They can't do that, not meaningfully. Mostly, they can't actually think outside the religion, but even if they could they can't write skeptically without losing their careers.

There is an Overton window, and journalists are the Cerberus of the ideological superstructure of our society. If you're not familiar, Cerberus guards the gates of the Underworld and ensures that the spirits of the dead cannot leave the Underworld and that the living cannot enter it. That's basically the function of "journalists". Mainline newspapers and their scribblers share all the limitations of the governing classes and they never willingly place themselves in minority positions.

Post reply on HN