So far Economist has not taken out this “unknown” terminology despite protests from some scientists and journalists that it is a loaded term that prejudices readers against the scientists. Indefensible. Authors of two papers in Science widely touted as ending the debate…
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1584013711051612160
Over Covid-19 origins were “unknown” to the vast majority of scientists and virtually the entire public before their papers were published, and in fact still are. The #media has a responsibility here, and readers should beware of substantial biases in coverage.
One of the key flaws in mainstream science journalism is its often wholesale embrace of argument from authority, which is supposed to be anathema to the scientific method but often replaces it in real life. For busy, deadline driven science writers, it is a Godsend…
Because it allows replacing actual in-depth reporting with deference to “experts.” I know what I’m talking about because I have been a science journalist for 40+ years and was the Paris correspondent for Science for 25 of those—voila my credentials for discussing…
How science journalism is done. Quoting “experts” on both sides of an issue is the modus operandi. But if “experts” are found on both sides of an issue—which is the case with Covid origins as well—how can they really be “experts”? Perhaps the term needs to be retired.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
