I think the effect is a bit overblown. Yes, I have noticed coverage of topics I know about that are oversimplified or straight up mistaken. But these are technical topics that I don’t expect journalists to get right (and in many cases I’d prefer they didn’t try to cover them at all). And I also won’t implicitly trust coverage about other technical subjects that I’m unfamiliar with.
I would argue that national politics and international affairs as they are covered in mass news media is a different type of coverage. It’s not about learning technical details and explaining them. It’s more about observing actions and broad sentiment and literally reporting those observations. I wouldn’t trust a reporter to get scientific details correct about some chemical process that’s the subject of some debated EPA regulation, but I could trust a reporter to summarize the debate and report on the sentiment of politicians, public sentiment based on opinion polls, etc. It would be weird to say “that newspaper screwed up the difference between a dominant 7th chord and a major 7th chord in a story about a famous songwriter, therefore I can’t trust them to report which politicians gave the most heated arguments in the debate about the EPA bill.”
Check out this excerpt from a local news story I saw yesterday. You know what else acetic anhydride is used in? Production of aspirin. This is basic scare tactics to manipulate people and I see it everyday. A combination of ignorance, laziness, and being the voice of those in power. Fake news and manipulation of the public.
"“Semi-synthetic derivatives, or chemically derived cannabinoids, refer to certain types of substances that are produced by converting a cannabis extract into a different substance through chemical reaction,” said forensic scientist with the North Dakota State Crime Laboratory Charlene Rittenbach at the March 3 committee hearing of the bill.
For example, according to the Addiction Prevention Coalition, to make THC-O: you need to extract CBD, extract Delta 8 THC from the CBD and then add acetic anhydride.
The National Library of Medicine says acetic anhydride is corrosive to metals and tissue, and it’s used to make fibers, plastics, dyes and explosives."
I would argue that national politics and international affairs as they are covered in mass news media is a different type of coverage. It’s not about learning technical details and explaining them. It’s more about observing actions and broad sentiment and literally reporting those observations. I wouldn’t trust a reporter to get scientific details correct about some chemical process that’s the subject of some debated EPA regulation, but I could trust a reporter to summarize the debate and report on the sentiment of politicians, public sentiment based on opinion polls, etc. It would be weird to say “that newspaper screwed up the difference between a dominant 7th chord and a major 7th chord in a story about a famous songwriter, therefore I can’t trust them to report which politicians gave the most heated arguments in the debate about the EPA bill.”