![]() ![]() Evidence plays little to no role for these outlets. Sources in the red column, on the other hand, are driven by ideology and are characterized by lopsided reporting. Media outlets in the green column produce scientific content that is based on evidence and is largely free of ideology. On the X-axis (from left to right), we rank sources by their fundamental trustworthiness. ![]() Some journalists really do care about reporting the news as it is rather than the way they would like it to be. So, in an effort to promote good science news sources while castigating the bad, we teamed up with RealClearScience to create an infographic. One thing experience has taught us is that some news outlets are better than others. Every week, it seems, an everyday food is either going to cure cancer or kill us all. Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism. If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is), science journalism is even worse. It helps to be well informed, and it requires a conscious suspension of credulity combined with a gut instinct honed over years of experience. A common question I hear again and again is, "How do I know if a news story is fake?" There is no easy answer 1. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |