
Cheerleading with an agenda: how the press covers science - vvdcect
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/cheerleading-agenda-press-covers-science/
======
chillingeffect
This reflects my experience in academia so much better than my rants over
beers and BBQ ever have.

I had no idea, but should have suspected, that Bernays was behind it all.

------
threepipeproblm
Thanks for this post. The description of the attempt to treat scientific
knowledge as a commodity reminds me of a quote I like by Dr. Ray Peat:

"Knowledge isn't a commodity, especially not a fungible commodity, as the
medical business sees it. Consciousness and culture are part of the life
process. It is exactly the commoditization of medical knowledge that makes it
dangerous, and generally stupid. Doctors buy their knowledge and then resell
it over and over; it's valuable as a commodity, so its value has to be
protected by the equivalent of a copyright, the system of laws establishing
the profession. Without its special status, its worthlessness would be quickly
demonsrated..." \-- Ray Peat, PhD.

------
adrianratnapala
I'm inclined to agree with the article, but it's a bit of a ramble. I wish it
explored what motivates of journalists to become cheerleeders. I can take
guesses, but those guesses are just speculation:

guess 1: Publishers want to cultivate relations with big institutions that are
the sources of their stories.

guess 2: Individual journalists enjoy the prestige of being associated with
big-name institutes.

Are either of the above correct? Are there other possibilities.

~~~
lithos
#1 reminds me a bit of what my uncle has said of his radio advertising work.
Where he works far harder than needed for the first couple of runs, so that in
the future similar work with the client is just a simple phone call(in either
direction depending).

A two salaried people working at different companies love setting up such
working relationships. Especially when a lot of public facing jobs can earn
large bonuses, or at least be at home with work almost writing itself.

------
stevetrewick
Weird article. Author seems less concerned that academics and journalists may
have _an_ agenda and more that it's the _wrong_ agenda.

------
analog31
_In 1894, science fiction writer, journalist and eugenics proponent H.G.
Wells, ..._

Mention of eugenics contributed nothing to the article, other than to create
an emotional atmosphere.

~~~
bloaf
The subsequent dig was weird too:

>If the public didn’t care about science, then there would not only be “the
danger of supplies being cut off,” but also the danger of the public endorsing
inquiries “of doubtful value” (ironic, given Wells’ enthusiasm for eugenics).

Eugenics is a legitimate scientific inquiry. The real irony is that this
author's distaste for eugenics is likely an example of "supplies being cut
off" from the field due to emotional, not scientific, reasons.

~~~
SticksAndBreaks
Science can be wrong, and should be able to reverse its stance with nothing
lost but funds and time. Eugenics is a field of finality, beeing wrong there
is final. Thus eugenics is not a science. You can not undo, the damage you do.

