Perhaps you don't read feature-type stories from small papers (or even mid-size papers, like mine), but we daily have stories that are about "normal" people doing either normal things or interesting but otherwise not "breaking news"-worthy things. They get a great response from our readership because they can identify with the subjects. They're certainly not the stories you see regularly on the front pages of major news sites, but many, many papers have them.
That said, I agree with a lot of your points - journalism doesn't always portray science as scholorly as it should. But there are many, many reasons for that:
- Lots of people who read the paper are neither looking for detailed science articles in their paper, nor might they understand all the bits and pieces if they did. I think people are underestimated, but I still don't think most people want detailed science in their morning read.
- Newspapers, and all journalism, exist to make money. They're generally businesses (with the exception of the rare independant journalist, but they're not featured in the kinds of newspapers/websites you're talking about). To make money, most sell advertising, and get more advertising revenue by selling more copies/views of their product. To do this, they have to write things they think people want. They hold "readership institutes", surveys, talk to readers, and seriously read all mail that comes in from readers. They've found, in general, the points I layed out above.
- Third, and most importantly, "journalism" is a term that refers to many people in many companies doing many, many different things. It's not some overwhelming conspiracy; editors and publishers don't get together in a large annual meeting and decide to air too many car chases and not enough human interest stories.
We're thousands of companies with thousands of points of view. We're neither out to get you nor some defender of the public. We're out there, for the most part, to sell papers. When you hear someone say "the media", think about someone saying "computer users", and applying one standard to all of them. It doesn't make much sense unless they're talking about something very basic and unimportant, and even then there are exceptions. There are definately media outlets that give others a "bad name", but it's hard to lump them all together.
no subject
Perhaps you don't read feature-type stories from small papers (or even mid-size papers, like mine), but we daily have stories that are about "normal" people doing either normal things or interesting but otherwise not "breaking news"-worthy things. They get a great response from our readership because they can identify with the subjects. They're certainly not the stories you see regularly on the front pages of major news sites, but many, many papers have them.
That said, I agree with a lot of your points - journalism doesn't always portray science as scholorly as it should. But there are many, many reasons for that:
- Lots of people who read the paper are neither looking for detailed science articles in their paper, nor might they understand all the bits and pieces if they did. I think people are underestimated, but I still don't think most people want detailed science in their morning read.
- Newspapers, and all journalism, exist to make money. They're generally businesses (with the exception of the rare independant journalist, but they're not featured in the kinds of newspapers/websites you're talking about). To make money, most sell advertising, and get more advertising revenue by selling more copies/views of their product. To do this, they have to write things they think people want. They hold "readership institutes", surveys, talk to readers, and seriously read all mail that comes in from readers. They've found, in general, the points I layed out above.
- Third, and most importantly, "journalism" is a term that refers to many people in many companies doing many, many different things. It's not some overwhelming conspiracy; editors and publishers don't get together in a large annual meeting and decide to air too many car chases and not enough human interest stories.
We're thousands of companies with thousands of points of view. We're neither out to get you nor some defender of the public. We're out there, for the most part, to sell papers. When you hear someone say "the media", think about someone saying "computer users", and applying one standard to all of them. It doesn't make much sense unless they're talking about something very basic and unimportant, and even then there are exceptions. There are definately media outlets that give others a "bad name", but it's hard to lump them all together.