But especially skeptical of pundits like Nate Silver.
Seriously, shouldn't they at least get Matt Taibbi's take also
I'm sure Michael Schillenbergee has some opinions that he in no way financially benefits from spreading.
Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
121–130 of 385 posts
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#122Big 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…
This is true for everything a journalist might cover.
They are not the expert, but still need to strive to find the truth of an issue they can relay to the public.
In this case, the underlying skill is, how do you detect and expose a cover up of inconvenient facts?
I don't know the answer to that question. But seems like a core skill of a journalist, regardless of the field being investigated.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#123Big 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…
One of the problems is that journalism just doesn't pay very well in general.
So news organizations may look for people with more experience in specific tech/science but I expect most people here would laugh at the comp and most aren't interested in paying for that news/writing themselves.
I do know tech journalists who are really good, but most of the people who write on deep technical topics either don't need the money or are doing it as a sideshow of their day jobs.
(Which, if they write for independent news organizations can be an issue. The WSJ reporter who basically uncovered the Theranos scandal quit because he couldn't give public speaking engagements.)
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#124[flagged]
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#125Everyone 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…
The essence of science is not trusting an expert, but requiring evidence and repeatability. Scientists aren't more trustworthy than those other groups for no reason, it's because they work in a field where work can be double-checked. As the repeatability crisis has shown, many believe their work will not be double-checked, and once they believe that, they become less and less worthy of that trust.
Right, that's why my first sentence was "everyone should be skeptical of every source"....
But if I'm forced to trust someone (and most of us are on a daily basis), I'd rather trust the guys whose whole job revolves around the principle of "we require evidence and repeatable results before we believe you" than pretty much every other profession.
Completely separate from my above point, I'd also say that I do believe scientists are on average more trustworthy than other career workers at a personal level. It's a profession that tends to attract people concerned with objective truth and rational logic. Just like how politics tends to attract those who want to work with people and the police force attracts people who are comfortable with violence. At least from my personal, anecdotal view.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#126Big 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…
So wait, I could make a career in being a software engineering style type of journalist?
I just don’t think they would care, would they?
If anyone is reading it working as such, feel free to humor me by shooting me an email (in my profile). I studied psychology (bachelor), business (bachelor), computer science (master) and game-design (master). I also did some course work related to journalism (though very limited, I only read The Elements of Style). I worked as a teacher (mostly in programming, though one lecture on rhetorics in a rhetorics class) and as a software engineer.
Let me know! I’m up for a chat as I might be a good fit and able to help more accurate reporting on AI and software in general.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#127Big 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.
Yes.
The whole point of science is that you do not have to believe anything just because a scientist said it. Only thing that matters is the validity of their data, whether the data truly backs their interpretation, and if the findings can be replicated.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#128Big 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…
> How are journalists supposed to be productively skeptical when the vast majority of them don't receive anything remotely approaching a truly well-rounded education?
Ask questions. Ask "why" a lot, don't take things at face value. Assume you're being bullshitted.
You don't need to deeply undestand a subject to make someone back up what they are saying.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#129I spent at least an hour reading through both the emails and the slack messages in this "expose", but I came away from it fairly certain that they are being portrayed unfairly, and I'm fairly surprised that Nate Silver has latched on to this. You have to both look at the time-line of the paper writing and the time-line of the conversations. By my reading, by the time the paper was being written, most of them had inde…
Also, paper writing is a collaborative effort, which does not imply that everyone on the paper agrees with every part of it 100%. e.g. if I get Jane on the paper because she knows the more than me about X, but we end up having a soft disagreement about X, I'm not walking away from the paper.
Also ... authors have good reason to manage their interactions with journalists. They don't want to be used or misrepresented. Also, given the politics of the moment, they also had every reason to be cautious about what they said publicly.
Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
#130I spent at least an hour reading through both the emails and the slack messages in this "expose", but I came away from it fairly certain that they are being portrayed unfairly, and I'm fairly surprised that Nate Silver has latched on to this. You have to both look at the time-line of the paper writing and the time-line of the conversations. By my reading, by the time the paper was being written, most of them had inde…
[flagged]