Science editors: National Public Radio vs. Fox News

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Pretty much what I expected. Fox can't have people who think too much or have relevant education.

 

Let's compare the backgrounds of science writers for Fox and NPR

Edited March 29, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan

[shellback]

wottsa matter?

you just tired of waiting for the fox documentary "when jesus rode a dinosaur"

seriously, have been watching with interest the inroads made on npr's sister network pbs by big money contributors. used to be pbs would air contreversial opinion pieces with science subjects. now nova is about as contreversial as rice crispys with shows about richard the third's bones and asteroid landings.frontline is still a bright spot but the producers of frontline have been throttled back(at least according to harpers magazine). money talks and bullshit walks, i guess. just ask big pbs contributors the koch brothers.

i dont think capitalisim lends itself well to good scientific reporting and research.

Edited March 31, 2015 by shellback

[mtangelsfan]

wottsa matter?

you just tired of waiting for the fox documentary "when jesus rode rode a dinosaur"

seriously, have been watching with interest the inroads made on npr's sister network pbs by big money contributors. used to be pbs would air contreversial opinion pieces with science subjects. now nova is about as contreversial as rice crispys with shows about richard the third's bones and asteroid landings.frontline is still a bright spot but the producers of frontline have been throttled back(at least according to harpers magazine). money talks and bullshit walks, i guess. just ask big pbs contributors the koch brothers.

i dont think capitalisim lends itself well to good scientific reporting and research.

 

and government sponsored scientific research would be better?

 

I can't see how.

[Jay]

nonsense

[shellback]

and government sponsored scientific research would be better?

 

I can't see how.

 

all scientific research takes funding, and more and more if the research team doesn't produce results that are desireable to the funders, you lose your funding!

that was the point i was trying to make. it doesn't matter who funds the research. iguess you could call it funding contamination.

the most egregious examples of this concern studies into the drugs that are vetted by the fda. pretty frightening to consider the drugs that you take are deemed safe by a body that grossly fixes experimental results. there are lots of examples.

we have good reason not to trust the government.

Edited March 31, 2015 by shellback

[Glen]

and government sponsored scientific research would be better?

 

I can't see how.

 

 

Yeah, just ignore all the government-sponsored scientific research from NASA and the military, because they've done nothing for society.  

[arch stanton]

Shouldn't there be a layer somewhere between government operated and for-immediate-profit of an essentially unattached 3rd party?

[mtangelsfan]

Yeah, just ignore all the government-sponsored scientific research from NASA and the military, because they've done nothing for society.  

 

By saying it couldn't be better I somehow ignored all the other stuff?

 

You are reading a whole lot into my statement.

[Glen]

Indeed I am.

[Amazing Larry]

Yeah, just ignore all the government-sponsored scientific research from NASA and the military, because they've done nothing for society.  

 

I hope they've done something with the trillions of cash they've received.

[Glen]

They have. Your hope has been realized. That should feel good.

[mtangelsfan]

Stop ignoring all the great things they have done lawrence!!!

[nate]

Much of the technology used in the aeronautics industry was developed from defense and nasa contracts. Much of our computer tech as well.

[Adam]

Doesn't mean it was done so efficiently

[Adam]

Doesn't mean it wasn't either...

[Thomas]

Generally editors and science stay away from each other in school.