Science doesn't care, by and large, what the answers are. It's only interested in getting the right answer. And journalism should be very much that way.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
I think journalism is important.
Many think of the sciences as merely a fund of knowledge. Journalists never ask scientists anything other than what the applications are of scientific breakthroughs. Interestingly, I doubt they ever ask a musician, writer, or actor the same question. I wonder why.
Speaking generally, people who are drawn to journalism are interested in what happens from the ground up less than they are from the top down.
If journalism is good, it is controversial, by its nature.
In essence, I see the value of journalism as resting in a twofold mission: informing the public of accurate and vital information, and its unique ability to provide a truly adversarial check on those in power.
Journalism, as concerns collecting information, differs little if at all from intelligence work. In my judgment, a journalist's job is very interesting.
Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.
I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us.
Journalism keeps you planted in the earth.