I just listened the the most recent episode of "On The Media", an NPR podcast that generally focuses on how journalists and the media report on current events, and frequently does a good job of calling out bad and biased reporting.
However, this week they dipped their toe into science reporting, and made an epic fail in my opinion. ( podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm091611e.mp3 )
A segment of the show (linked above) was about Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. They completely failed to report on the science and instead just made a pathetic appeal to emotion. The reporter closes the piece with a brief, "I talked to a bunch of experts" with no mention of who those supposed experts were, or what their credentials were, or even what they had to say.
Anyway, it would be cool if the comments page for the piece could be flooded with some good skepticism and suggestions for how good science journalism is done. onthemedia.org/2011/sep/16/escape-wifi-national-quiet-zone/
However, this week they dipped their toe into science reporting, and made an epic fail in my opinion. ( podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/otm/otm091611e.mp3 )
A segment of the show (linked above) was about Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. They completely failed to report on the science and instead just made a pathetic appeal to emotion. The reporter closes the piece with a brief, "I talked to a bunch of experts" with no mention of who those supposed experts were, or what their credentials were, or even what they had to say.
Anyway, it would be cool if the comments page for the piece could be flooded with some good skepticism and suggestions for how good science journalism is done. onthemedia.org/2011/sep/16/escape-wifi-national-quiet-zone/
Last edited:
