One of the reasons I don't lose much sleep over the ongoing destruction in the newspaper business is this: the massive levels of incompetence found in the reporting ranks. When I leave the tech journalism sphere and read "mainstream" reporting on tech, I get the same feeling that Ben Goldacre gets about science reporting:

Writing this column really scares me because I wonder whether everything else in the media is as shamelessly, venally, manipulatively, one-sidedly, selectively reported on as the things I know about. But this week the reality editing was truly without comparison.

Goldacre was writing about the bizarro reporting around vaccination, but he could just as well have picked any topic. The problem is this: the media decided that subject matter expertise was irrelevant: all you really needed was a journalism degree, and a mandate to get "both sides" of any issue.

There are a number of problems with that, not least of which is this: what if there are more than 2 sides? What if the issue at hand is more complicated than that? Worse, what if, as a person with no subject matter expertise, the reporter has a few pre-conceived notions and slants stories? It's not necessarily the case that this is even done purposely; it's very easy to give subtle weight to something you agree with.

Look at it this way: do you think that just anyone can teach calculus if you hand them a set of powerpoints and a book? If not, why do you think that just anyone can report on (insert topic here)?

Technorati Tags: reporting, news