It may seem like blasphemy to scientists and journalists to have anyone argue that perhaps mainstream media should do less science coverage, but the world is changing fast. Trying to be all things to all people is increasingly difficult and science is more and beyond the abilities of journeyman writers no matter how talented they are. Unless the story is really big, television newscasts don't go very deep into science, they understand that they are competing with three-minute YouTube videos about science, and serious people are going to read more specialized publications. Why should the New York Times have talented writers struggling to understand science when its readers are more interested in politics or book reviews or current events?

Recently, we got another example of how they are out of their depth. A NYT Style columnist declared that the Apple Watch was going to cause cancer, and because it was outside the fashion world the author was tripped up by the plague of Google search which, due to popularity, sometimes ranks high-profile cranks ahead of serious work. Joe Mercola is far richer and far more popular than Science 2.0 or me, precisely because he is out to embrace anything he can sell, and people love that and drive up his Internet presence...but Google has no way to account for that.

So now Joe Mercola can count a New York Times endorsement of his magic potions for his curriculum vitae, which only adds to his search engine authority. 

The problem is not new. We have often chided the New York Times for alternating its Miracle Vegetable coverage with Scare Journalism like that a watch will cause cancer, but a large subset of young journalists share the kind of cultural and political proclivity that makes them want to embrace big, centralized organizations like billion dollar media outlets and the federal government. To achieve the goal of getting a spot in Washington, D.C. or a cubicle in midtown Manhattan they are being steeped in the belief that miracle vegetables and scare journalism are what science media is all about.

They are in for a real dose of reality if that job at the New York Times or Mother Jones is not available, everyone else expects context and understanding and asking the awkward questions of studies and scientists, not an attitude that it must be fact because it is in the second most popular newspaper in New York City.

Writing at Real Clear Science, Alex Berezow asks that awkward question; since they have two great science writers and then a bunch of people writing pieces to support whatever fad diet is on their bestseller list at the moment, should the New York Times just leave science to the people who care and stick with metro issues and whatever Paul Krugman is going on about?

Their ombudsman made barely half an effort in cleaning up the 'cell phones cause cancer' mess, noting they should have caught it - well, who there would catch it? The demographic most likely to believe cell phones cause cancer is the same as those believing that business is evil, vaccines cause autism and GMOs are dangerous - the editors who work at the New York Times choosing content for the people who read the New York Times have been sympathetic to all of those ideas. They never questioned whether cell phones would cause cancer because it isn't the first time it has been in the New York Times and they probably read that someone in Europe thinks so and therefore it must be true.

When Gawker is making your science journalism look stupid, you have to consider a cultural reset.

Butter churning image: Fark