Scott Adams, using evolution as an example, points out how media narratives often undermine the very point they are trying to make - by leaving things out or looking like "commandments from on high". This point, made about evolution, applies in general to a lot of media narratives:

My point is that the average non-scientist has been fed a diet of suspicious evidence for evolution for decades. And much of it turns out to be bull****. It smelled like bull**** and it was.

Too many writers end up thinking of their audience as a bunch of stupid proles who have to be led to the truth - and if a few shortcuts with facts are made here or there to make the narrative better, so be it. The problem is, that only amplifies the scent of bs that is wafting off the narrative, and gives people something to be angry about. I'll post his summary, and point out that it applies equally well to almost any media narrative you care to pick:

You don’t need to give me links to web sites that “do an excellent job of answering all your questions.” I’ve been there. They don’t address my point in this post. All they do is point out that scientists themselves have convincing evidence for evolution that non-scientists don’t understand. I’m not debating that point in this post.

Technorati Tags: reporting