Alex has offered an article which attempts to answer the above question.
http://www.skeptiko.com/why-you-me-...ience-and-new-york-times-science-journalists/
My question is, how does one tell beforehand which is the science writer to trust? The science writer who writes about the support for AGW or the one who writes about the lack of support for AGW? The science writer who writes about the research into vaccine safety or the science writer who writes about vaccines as a cause of autism? The science writer who reviews the research on the safety and efficacy of statins or the science writer who writes about symptoms suffered while on statins?
What's the criteria which let's us know beforehand which science writer is offering a fair and accurate representation of the research (following the data) and which is part of a corrupt PR campaign?
A similar issue came up in the 911 thread, where I asked, given that one can find an endless string of videos which debunk the debunking of the debunkers (etc., etc.) how one is supposed to decide which set of debunkers is speaking fairly and accurately and which are not? (I didn't get an answer, other than "believe me".)
Thoughts?
Linda
(As usual, mod+ refers to Alex's NAR, as he specifies here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...cal-science-reporting.2068/page-16#post-62781)
http://www.skeptiko.com/why-you-me-...ience-and-new-york-times-science-journalists/
My question is, how does one tell beforehand which is the science writer to trust? The science writer who writes about the support for AGW or the one who writes about the lack of support for AGW? The science writer who writes about the research into vaccine safety or the science writer who writes about vaccines as a cause of autism? The science writer who reviews the research on the safety and efficacy of statins or the science writer who writes about symptoms suffered while on statins?
What's the criteria which let's us know beforehand which science writer is offering a fair and accurate representation of the research (following the data) and which is part of a corrupt PR campaign?
A similar issue came up in the 911 thread, where I asked, given that one can find an endless string of videos which debunk the debunking of the debunkers (etc., etc.) how one is supposed to decide which set of debunkers is speaking fairly and accurately and which are not? (I didn't get an answer, other than "believe me".)
Thoughts?
Linda
(As usual, mod+ refers to Alex's NAR, as he specifies here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...cal-science-reporting.2068/page-16#post-62781)