But it's hard to know whether or not this is true. There's no obvious reason to suppose that journalism is doing equally badly in all fields.
I can ask someone who's an expert in a different field, and they might say "yes, it's terrible there too", but maybe what they're thinking of as "terrible" is considerably better or worse than what I am.
And it seems clear that journalists in general are much more interested in some fields than others. I don't think it makes sense to assume that coverage of (say) party politics is as bad as coverage of science, because they're surely putting much more effort in there.
(Coverage of party politics is probably bad too, but if so I think it's bad for different reasons.)
I can ask someone who's an expert in a different field, and they might say "yes, it's terrible there too", but maybe what they're thinking of as "terrible" is considerably better or worse than what I am.
And it seems clear that journalists in general are much more interested in some fields than others. I don't think it makes sense to assume that coverage of (say) party politics is as bad as coverage of science, because they're surely putting much more effort in there.
(Coverage of party politics is probably bad too, but if so I think it's bad for different reasons.)