There's an article in The Independent (print version; I can't find it online) about new guidelines for scientific journalism. I'm all for this: a scientific voice is too powerful in the public's mind to be used for political ends or just to make a good story. The Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford have produced the report including some well thought out guidelines for journalists. My favourite (from the Indy):
Establishing journalistic "balance" by quoting the opposing views of a minority does not adequately take into account that minority views in science are more likely to be wrong.
And if you don't take this into account then the public believe that global warming is fiction, that if something is GM it is automatically bad, that there is no difference between science-as-research and science-as-industrial/political-propaganda.
There's an article in The Independent (print version; I can't find it online) about new guidelines for scientific journalism. I'm all for this: a scientific voice is too powerful in the public's mind to be used for political ends or just to make a good story. The Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford have produced the report including some well thought out guidelines for journalists. My favourite (from the Indy):
Establishing journalistic "balance" by quoting the opposing views of a minority does not adequately take into account that minority views in science are more likely to be wrong.
And if you don't take this into account then the public believe that global warming is fiction, that if something is GM it is automatically bad, that there is no difference between science-as-research and science-as-industrial/political-propaganda.