Scientists are also paid, funded, just as journalists are, and as with journalists, the bigger the find, the more sensational the results, the greater funding will follow. It's big business in itself.
True enough, but science is peer reviewed on a massive scale, i.e. internationally and frequently. Other scientists are often keen to either discredit or benefit from another's work and, in that way, bad science gets rooted out.
Journalism is reviewed only by the public, who don't have equal voice when they disagree with a journalist. Furthermore, they're a biased public because they're the public who buy a particular newspaper with a particular political leaning; one that the journalist is playing up to, whether they agree with it or not.
How often to you think about Global Warming/Climate Change?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Scientists are also paid, funded, just as journalists are, and as with journalists, the bigger the find, the more sensational the results, the greater funding will follow. It's big business in itself.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
True enough, but science is peer reviewed on a massive scale, i.e. internationally and frequently. Other scientists are often keen to either discredit or benefit from another's work and, in that way, bad science gets rooted out.
Journalism is reviewed only by the public, who don't have equal voice when they disagree with a journalist. Furthermore, they're a biased public because they're the public who buy a particular newspaper with a particular political leaning; one that the journalist is playing up to, whether they agree with it or not.