|
I've seen similar mix ups many times before and used to be quite critical of the ignorance of science journalists. These days I generally cut them a bit of slack - unless it's a total howler. I suspect that employers look for someone who is a journalist first and a scientist second. So they may have no, or very little, science training. Even if they have studied science they may not have studied the branch of science they are reporting on. Perhaps they are a chemist being asked to report on cutting edge advances in astronomy, medicine or geology. They also have to get that breaking news out fast. No time to do enough background reading to get themselves across the subject.
I know from personal experience that at least some journalists are willing to correct errors when they are informed of them. Some years ago the ABC web site reported on a paper in Nature by John Nott et al. in which the changing frequency of tropic cyclones over the past several thousand years was investigated using oxygen isotope ratios of the CaCO3 in speleothems of tropical caves. This is an area of science I know something about (as does at least one other member of this forum). They correctly reported the central findings of the paper but made some errors in the supporting information. For instance, they said that oxygen-18 is formed in tropical cyclones (no - there are no nuclear reactions in cyclones) and that the rainwater is trapped inside the stalactite (no - it is incorporated into the CaCO3 of the stalactite). So I emailed the ABC and explained their errors. About an hour later the story had been amended and there were my words in place of the errors. I was a bit chuffed.
BTW Another example today. Reporting on the discovery of the most distant galaxy yet seen the reader was told:
"The key to the discovery was precisely measuring the shift of the galaxy's light into longer, redder wavelengths, which directly corresponds to how far the photons had travelled before reaching Hubble's eye."
Now, we all know that isn't entirely correct but it does get the basic point across. How critical should we be?
|