Hi Tenormalised & All,
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
... You know, it's hard trying to figure out what most of the media end up reporting anyway, especially with anything to do with science. They always get the bull by the horns and stuff everything up...due in no doubt to their pretty much complete ignorance in anything scientific.
|
Hmmm ...
Well the problem I think is that in the main, journalists as well as T.V and radio presenters are well ... expert journalists and presenters and it is difficult for them to get to grips with the very technical and exoteric language that astronomy and many other sciences employ.
Which is why a whole new "vocation" (profession, calling ??) has evolved over the last decade or so -- the science communicator. This person firstly "translates" the extremely technical stuff into everyday terms that will make sense to the journalists, presenters and hopefully the public and checks material in scripts, docos etc for scientific accuracy. Unfortunately they are under-utilised and I think in newsrooms sometimes it is just too much angst to try and get hold of someone who knows the subject area and they just make the best stab they can.
So while I agree with you it's hard to condemn completely because they're not scientists. But on the other hand, they've got a responsibility to report/comment accurately and like you I often wonder how often some producer/sub-editor etc say's "close enough --I hope ... Who'll know the difference anyway?"
Best,
Les D