In my opinion, it's almost 100% due to science journalists not having the time or institutional support (money and other reporting resources) to do the job right. Scientists will send you their papers for free. Press officers usually include it in press release materials. But it takes time to delve into papers, reach out to outside sourc…
In my opinion, it's almost 100% due to science journalists not having the time or institutional support (money and other reporting resources) to do the job right. Scientists will send you their papers for free. Press officers usually include it in press release materials. But it takes time to delve into papers, reach out to outside sources and other expertise, synthesize it all and then write something that's engaging and coherent. I think the science sections (not op eds about science) in legacy papers and magazines (ex. WaPo, NYT, Wall Street Journal) still do a pretty good job, even if they are playing it safe as far as coverage goes most of the time. It's the places that are primarily focused on science (SciAm, SciFri, Popsi, Discover, Gizmodo) that are really hollowed out. Luckily, I think it's pretty easy to spot the stuff that's 90% press release. (Top flag: All the quotes came from the release.) It's just exhausting to find the stuff that isn't like that.
Negative, this article had to get some intentional neglect. Nothing this bad is typically published. I dare you to find me a worse psych article in a journal with a higher impact factor. If you find one, a guarantee woke politics or subserving a useful political narrative.
In my opinion, it's almost 100% due to science journalists not having the time or institutional support (money and other reporting resources) to do the job right. Scientists will send you their papers for free. Press officers usually include it in press release materials. But it takes time to delve into papers, reach out to outside sources and other expertise, synthesize it all and then write something that's engaging and coherent. I think the science sections (not op eds about science) in legacy papers and magazines (ex. WaPo, NYT, Wall Street Journal) still do a pretty good job, even if they are playing it safe as far as coverage goes most of the time. It's the places that are primarily focused on science (SciAm, SciFri, Popsi, Discover, Gizmodo) that are really hollowed out. Luckily, I think it's pretty easy to spot the stuff that's 90% press release. (Top flag: All the quotes came from the release.) It's just exhausting to find the stuff that isn't like that.
Negative, this article had to get some intentional neglect. Nothing this bad is typically published. I dare you to find me a worse psych article in a journal with a higher impact factor. If you find one, a guarantee woke politics or subserving a useful political narrative.