NOTHING IN, CERTAINTY OUT
Science journalism is hard to get right. There is the constant struggle to clearly explain one’s topic without over-simplifying or misrepresenting by dumbing-down the details in hopes of communicating better and on the opposite side, explaining the topic in far too great an esoteric technical detail and far above the general understanding of one’s readers...
Readers [viewers and listeners] should be aware that they are often seeing only one side of an issue, a result of their own choice of what outlet to read — here, at WUWT, you will not find essays promoting CAGW panic or alarm — that’s not what gets published here. I think that’s a good thing — but I am aware of it, not fooling myself with the idea that reading here keeps me fully informed on the topic...
If we have journalists reading here, I’d like to hear your personal experiences on the topic of Editorial Narratives and their equivalents in your field. You can count on the anonymity of the Web to obscure your identity.This gives rise to some cognative dissonance, as none of the journals he customarily cites, from The Daily Caller and Breitbart to WUWT and the WSJ have science editors to begin with, preferring less labor and content-intensive editorial modes, like:
