(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-18 06:38 am (UTC)
The true answer is that *mostly* I trust The Economist.

Which is a long way to go to say, "James Hansen."

But why do you trust The Economist? What makes you think that they're the most reliable intermediary? What makes their writers less susceptible to the forces that befuddle the most well-intentioned journalists covering scientific issues?

To me, the anonymity of their writers is one The Economist's weaknesses. Because of this cloak, there's no way to evaluate their qualifications, biases, and histories. In contrast, I know that Ben Goldacre (of The Guardian) doesn't actually care to understand climate change (as he's said in not so many words), so he's not really a reliable intermediary on that subject. I also know his politics (and his religion!), so I know which articles of his to verify. But this also means that I know which issues I can trust him as an authority, because I know about his faults (and his background as a medical doctor).

Slightly off topic: In between his snark, Goldacre's site Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) is a good source for understanding the pressures that a science journalist faces. That education is one of the reasons I've started looking at the primary sources more, as it's excessively easy for a journalist to make an innocent mistake that changes the meaning of an article.
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags