In general, science journalism concerns itself with what has been published in a handful of peer-reviewed journals - Nature, Cell, The New England Journal of Medicine - which set the agenda.
From Michael Pollan
Specialization makes it easy to forget about the filth of the coal-fired power plant that is lighting this pristine computer screen, or the backbreaking labor it took to pick the strawberries for my cereal, or the misery of the hog that lived and died so I could enjoy my bacon.
There's been progress toward seeing that nature and culture are not opposing terms, and that wilderness is not the only kind of landscape for environmentalists to concern themselves with.
Yes, I very much like to have a personal stake in what I'm writing about.
Anyway, in my writing I've always been interested in finding places to stand, and I've found it very useful to have a direct experience of what I'm writing about.
My writing is remarkably non-confessional; you actually learn very little about me.
The larger meaning here is that mainstream journalists simply cannot talk about things that the two parties agree on; this is the black hole of American politics.
The Times has much less power than you think. I believe we attribute power to the media generally that it simply doesn't have. It's very convenient to blame the media, the same way we blame television for everything that's going wrong in society.
The Congressional leaders set the agenda for journalism; it's not the other way around.
The big journals and Nobel laureates are the equivalent of Congressional leaders in science journalism.
31 perspectives
15 perspectives
12 perspectives
11 perspectives
10 perspectives
3 perspectives
2 perspectives
1 perspectives