Tonight in my science writing class, we were presented with an interesting topic. Our guest speaker, who has studied science writing but has also been on the public medical side, said that many journalists often give the wrong idea about a science story by presenting both sides equally.
As journalists, we're taught to always get both sides of the story, so the idea of putting more importance on one source over another is a little hard for me to grasp. I think the discretion is more important in science articles, when the importance of one study might outweigh the validity of another. But it just seems strange still to think that the journalist has the right to weigh the importance of sources.
But if you think about it, every time there's an article about space exploration, you don't have to get a quote from someone who still believes the world is flat.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment