On 7/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
As the originator of this thread, (thanks for the analysis Fred) I just want to make a quick comment on this business. I'm a published critic (quite a different beast from a news journalist), but the plain and simple truth when it comes to the veracity and skill of any journalist is it depends on the journalist and their particular employer. This is just the same as wiki editors; some are hopeless fools with bad grammar, some are experts in their field and great writers. There is no hard and fast rule. But it can be said that the vast majority of journalists, especially those from a prestigious organization such as the BBC, have received specialized training that vastly enhances the abilities of otherwise mediocre people. Wikipedia users certainly don't go through 4+ years of school in how to adhere to NPOV. Not that I think they should.
When it comes to science coverage, I think this is kind of a special case. Take for example Charlie Rose the other night. He interviewed a table of experts and advocates on the search for a solution to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The people sitting at that table have spent a lot of time in academic institutions just to understand the science around this, and then afr more time working professionally on the subject. I don't think Rose should be expected to pick it up handily in a week. But what he is there to do is understand it sufficiently to know what are the right questions to ask, so that his viewers can better understand it. And knowing which are the right questions to ask is not so easy as one would think.
Well, I think what most of us on this list have in mind when we bring up the BBC and science reporting is the horrendous gaffes they have made on their website by blowing things out of proportion and exaggerating/fabricating facts. (The case of cows supposedly having accents comes to mind.)
Johnleemk