Bottom line is that with issues that are "in the news" the qualifying language is often dropped.
"...advice for scientists who wanted to “dampen the whiplash effect” was to “discuss the ‘So what?’ implications of the work explicitly, rather than leaving that step to advocates or politicians, or reporters.”
But there are those on both sides of the issue who have little interest in the truth, they have an agenda to support.
News Analysis - Climate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash. - News Analysis - NYTimes.com:
"When science is testing new ideas, the result is often a two-papers-forward-one-paper-back intellectual tussle among competing research teams.
When the work touches on issues that worry the public, affect the economy or polarize politics, the news media and advocates of all stripes dive in. Under nonstop scrutiny, conflicting findings can make news coverage veer from one extreme to another, resulting in a kind of journalistic whiplash for the public.
This has been true for decades in health coverage. But lately the phenomenon has been glaringly apparent on the global warming beat."
No comments:
Post a Comment