MMMM # 170 -- Reporters as experts

     Let's face it. Most reporters (including this one) aren't experts in any particular field. We have just, in theory, learned how to ask the right questions of people in any field, to produce answers that the general public will understand.
     So, when it comes to global warming, what do I know? Not much. My science grades were only marginally better than my miserable math grades.   
     Some meteorologists on TV have taken very public stands against it. That's a popular position in The South, not so much elsewhere.
    A former physicist will be presenting three papers in New Mexico today that he says moved him from the skeptic to the believer side of the never-ending global warming argument.
    Will it change any global warming opinions--which among the general public are mostly political, after all, and not scientific--?
    I doubt it.
   We live in a time when we are all right. We listen closely to those who back us up, and ignore those who are on the other side. That's why FOX and CNN have vastly different audiences.
    When it comes to scientific controversies, reporters have to do what they are trained to do: listen to both sides, and report them, hoping their stories will be clear enough for readers/viewers/listeners to make up their own minds.

[The Monday Morning Media Memo is a regular feature of this blog.]