Home > Views > Blogs > Mixed Media > The Worst Science Writing? Not Necessarily
PRINT
RSS
SHARE
TEXT SIZE:
Send a copy to me

Separate multiple email addresses (max 20) with commas.

0/1500
Letters are not case-sensitive, disregard spaces.
captcha image
Try a New One
This helps us prevent automated registrations and spamming.

Main
Deep Read: 'New York' on Jeff Bewkes   'Esquire's' Not-So-Secret Shame
Jan 14 2008 11:09AM EST

The Worst Science Writing? Not Necessarily

I don't doubt there's some genuinely sloppy science writing among the articles singled out in this list of "The Worst Science Stories of 2007." But you can and should question the source: STATS, a "non-profit, non-partisan organization" attached to George Mason University.

You remember George Mason University. It's the same institution whose Center for Media and Public Affairs brought you the shocking revelation that Fox News provides the fairest political coverage of any TV network. Only, as it turned out, the methods used to arrive at that conclusion were deeply, hilariously flawed.

Meanwhile, it emerged that George Mason gets "nearly all its funding" from "conservative foundations" and is a bastion of free-market, pro-corporate thinking. That might explain why STATS's listing of the worst science journalism focuses on stories that called attention to the allegedly harmful effects of various industrial chemicals.

Incidentally, list-maker Trevor Butterworth, who's been running STATS.org since 2004, is an old hand at this sort of thing. He used to run a media criticism site called NewsWatch.org. It was published by -- wait for it -- the Center for Media and Public Affairs.


Loading...


Archive

Jul 2008



Also in Portfolio.com
Most Emailed
Recently Commented