http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/04/fafarman_likes_me_he_really_li.php

Instead, partisan media will convey diametrically opposed versions of where science actually stands on any contentious subject–consider, for example, the difference between how Fox News and NPR cover climate change”

It’s not just a war between opposite sides of a partisan media that is of concern.

Individual media outlets (like NPR) need to take a very critical look at their (false) assumption that there are two sides to every scientific issue and that every scientific finding must be “balanced” with a “contrary” view — ie, by giving equal time to someone (anyone) who does not “buy” the science.

And most importantly, the media needs to drop their utterly ridiculous operating assumption that the scientific truth on any given subject always lies in the “middle” — between the extremes on “right” and “left”.

It’s the old idea that “if I am angering people on both sides, I must be doing something right” and it has no basis in scientific reality.

“We must stop assuming today’s media will dutifully carry the best and most reliable knowledge to policy-makers and the American public.”

Yes indeed. Journalists as the Noble “purveyors of knowledge”, the “conduits of wisdom” as it were (*in the sense of “Noble” gases that do not react with what they come in contact with)

Cracks me up. It seems that the ones who are most guilty of perpetuating this ridiculous myth are actually journalists themselves who have a very distorted (and overinflated) opinion of themselves: particularly of their own ability to act as “completely unbiased observers”.

On science issues especially, many of these “journalists” seem to equate “ignorance” (their own) with “impartiality.” The operating assumption seems to be “the less i know about this issue, the better. Knowledge will only bias me”.

I disagree. This is real science journalism. No, it is not bare fact reporting. No, it is not hard news with hard facts and body counts. This blog. It is about Chis’s and Sheril’s opinion about science stories and a commentary on them. The old opinion piece type stories for traditional media are just about dead. Welcome to a new form of journalism. Interactive editorial opinion.

The whole point is to create a forum for open debate and to present opinions on science topics. I don’t agree with many of the author’s stances on topics. What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed on everything. They present their take on the current topics and I either read and go on or I take a few minutes to put in my equally important opinion.

We are not taking on the stories and providing scientific data to counter or support the science but discussing the philosophy behind them. Science is not just data. It is philosophy, ethics, and oh so much more.