Which should of course not be exaggerated and fully blamed on the reporter.
A reporter not understanding what a physicist explained does not mean they lack the ability to understand what a policeman or politician told them.
A reporter not being able to explain a theory does not mean they cannot correctly report on the plain facts of a murder or a policy proposal.
In such cases the risks are inferences drawn from the (lack of) facts, the reliability of the source (material), etc. Every kind of article requires scepticism of different aspects. Just ensuring you don't suffer from Gell-Mann Amnesia is woefully insufficient.
Except it's not just complex scientific subjects they get wrong. If you start looking for it you'll find it's anything that you know about. I've observed it in articles on pigeon racing.
Comments
Which should of course not be exaggerated and fully blamed on the reporter.
A reporter not understanding what a physicist explained does not mean they lack the ability to understand what a policeman or politician told them.
A reporter not being able to explain a theory does not mean they cannot correctly report on the plain facts of a murder or a policy proposal.
In such cases the risks are inferences drawn from the (lack of) facts, the reliability of the source (material), etc. Every kind of article requires scepticism of different aspects. Just ensuring you don't suffer from Gell-Mann Amnesia is woefully insufficient.
Except it's not just complex scientific subjects they get wrong. If you start looking for it you'll find it's anything that you know about. I've observed it in articles on pigeon racing.
Here's the source for the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect quote: https://web.archive.org/web/20061020012137/http://www.cricht...