TY - JOUR
AB -  Recent exchanges between the Society for Conservation Biology and the Society for Environmental Journalists suggest that a degree of antipathy exists between scientists and journalists. Two members of the Society for Conservation Biology's Media Committee characterized the typical scientist's reaction to journalists as follows: “At best, [they] interrupt whatever you're doing. At worst, they misquote and misrepresent you” ( Jacobson & Meadows 2000 ). Ecologists frequently assume that reporters are “demanding, they want everything immediately, and then half the time they get it wrong” ( Mathews‐Amos 2000 ). Journalists, in turn, are exasperated by scientists' reluctance to discuss both the technical aspects of their research and its relevance to the general public ( Mathews‐Amos 2000 ; Meadows & Johns 2001 ). Miscommunication between these two groups seems to be driven by the perception that scientists and journalists have different ethical and operational standards. I believe that this perception is erroneous. The challenges of balancing objectivity and opinion and of engaging an audience without compromising the facts are inherent to both science and journalism. The struggle to overcome these challenges confronts scientists and journalists as individuals and is the basis on which the public judges the professional credibility of 
TI - The Error of Judgment: Struggling for Neutrality in Science and Journalism
JF - Conservation Biology
DO - 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01667.x
DA - 2002-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/the-error-of-judgment-struggling-for-neutrality-in-science-and-00Ppg3Av0H
SP - 1451
VL - 16
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -