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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-18 06:38 am (UTC)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.