so uninformed, we argue

The authors in Science and the Media find:

  • The journalistic tradition of presenting opposing sides of an issue in order to ensure [claim] unbiased reporting may actually cloud scientific issues when views that fall outside the mainstream are given equal weight with consensus scientific thinking.
  • Adults over age 35 never learned about relatively new areas of science like stem cells, nanotechnology and global warming in school and thus depend on the media for information about such topics.

Download the paper.

And that ain’t scratching the surface on how the poorly informed are screwing with us !

Oh, settle down, Brian, there’s a perfectly good template for journalists, science writers or not, that Dave Pollard discovered at the UK’s Guardian. Saved. Finally, facts can be delivered, theories hoisted accurately, models fully explained, breakthrough utilized, and thus good sense will spread across the world…

Is this an important scientific finding?

No. This is a news website article about a scientific paper.

This paragraph will explain that while some scientists believe one thing to be true, other people believe another, different thing to be true.

If the subject is politically sensitive this paragraph will contain quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public ‘controversy’ exists.

Controversy. Yup. That sells.