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

111–120 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#111

Post by andromeduck »

golergka wrote: post #91
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…

There isn't enough money in journalism anymore to sustain this.

Colleges really need to upgrade STEM requirements for liberal arts.

At my alma, science/engineering required 18 arts credits while arts required only 6 science/math credits.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#112

Post by dr_dshiv »

obscurette wrote: post #31
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…

Although I'm not really sure it's a global issue, but at least here in Eastern Europe you just have no time to dig in deeper in any subject as journalist. I've seen local academic institutions trying to support journalists to specialize on science reporting more than 10 years now, but all have left saying that pressure to produce just more text is too intense. Old school investigative journalism just doesn't exist an…

Well, now they can have chatGPT save them so much time that they can do quality research, right?

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#113

Post by pessimizer »

Journalists these days are generally not hired for their incredulity. They're hired based on a track record of not deviating from their employer's political and financial priorities, regardless of the evidence. These are businesses, not public services. They owe their existence to dishonest and manipulative presentations of the qualities of third-party products that they sandwich between their own content.

Lets go back to the days where media outlets were open about their editorial stances, rather than hiding them behind a veil of white-coated objectivity. Propagandists should stop pretending to be doctors, and just be honest propagandists.

Putting it all on Democrats isn't completely fair, although I get how bitter Silver is that they sanctified him when he told them what they wanted to hear and condemned him when the data pointed the other way. It could have just as easily been the Republicans in control of those institutions now if the party weren't so hostile to minorities.

That hostility cut them off from dominance of the nonprofit sector, which serves to convert the money of governments (i.e. the will of elected officials) and oligarchs into media messages. They're stuck with thinktanks and veteran's organizations, although they sometimes find openings in patient's rights nonprofits (run by pharmaceutical companies.)

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#114

Post by ke88y »

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…

I agree with your prescriptions, but worry the point might've slipped by.

> READ the papers

The point of my original comment is that most journalists don't have the educational background required to do this. And everything else flows downstream of that problem.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#115

Post by ctrlp »

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…

Both those ideas (a,b) are look to be vindicated. It does look like an engineered bio-weapon and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion. And whether the people pointing to a lab leak were also demanding a national security response or opposing one, that is what happened, i.e., it was a national security response (big pharma white labeling and providing distribution for DoD subcontractors product). Simple as.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#116

Post by vondur »

legitster wrote: post #47
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…

Academia has sold itself and the world that it is only scrutinizable unto itself. But this was not always the case. If you read scientific papers from 50 or 100 years ago, they are surprisingly readable. There also used to be much more involvement from "lay-scientists" and hobbyists.

As the fields have become more and more specialized over the years, and the technology has increased, it's gets more difficult to write about subjects without using jargon and more complicated visualizations. As mentioned in other comments, having journalists with a science background would definitely help.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#117

Post by legitster »

jfengel wrote: post #81
legitster wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academia has sold itself and the world that it is only scrutinizable unto itself. But this was not always the case. If you read scientific papers from 50 or 100 years ago, they are surprisingly readable. There also used to be much more involvement from "lay-scientists" and hobbyists.

That was easier to do 50 or 100 years ago. The longer we do science, the more we already know. Finding something novel gets harder and harder. It becomes less and less likely that you can find it without having spent a long time learning what's already known. Academics certainly could be better writers and communicators now, but non-scientists cannot expect to understand most work that required years of education bef…

Maybe this is true for some of the advanced sciences. But when it comes to some of the topics that get the most news coverage (psychology, public health, economics) you're not dealing with controlled experiments. So much of it is just random sampling and double blind studies.

This work is good. But none of this work is particularly complicated or hard to understand - and so much of the "education" is busy work or learning the "inside baseball" of how to get meaningful results and how to get published.

When we are talking about "trust the scientists" no one is really arguing that nuclear scientists or aeronautical engineers don't know what they are talking about. We're really talking about whether we should listen to an epidemiologist just because they have spent so much time looking at these studies (often conflicting!) that they can squint their eyes when they look at a set of data and give a more qualified off-the-cuff opinion.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#118

Post by robertlagrant »

MostlyStable wrote: post #17
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…

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…

> and that reporters could never become capable of doing it

I disagree for any current reporters who were selected by going to journalism school rather than by gaining expertise and then turning to journalism.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#119

Post by blitz_skull »

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…

Simple: Stop believing it’s true just because a scientist said it.

You don’t need a STEM degree to stop propagating theories before they’re proven.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#120

Post by intrasight »

robot_no_421 wrote: post #37

Everyone should be skeptical of all sources. But out of the myriad of various opinions coming from politicians, CEOs, propagandists, flat out out idiots, and everything else in between, scientists are arguably the class of truth sayers you should be least skeptical of. So while the title is technically true and I agree with the premise of the article, the article itself is wholly unnecessary at best and damaging at w…

My take as well. And you don't have to be an expert to be skeptical.
Post reply on HN