The Monkey Cage has an interesting blog up now about opinions on term limits for Supreme Court justices. I like the entry, because it's a friendly conversation between different bloggers and political scientists. It's a neat article, and you should read it.
If you don't want to, that's ok. I bring your attention to the end of the entry. There is a criticism of a bias that I think has been hiding in the shadows. Journalists talk to journalists. They don't talk to political scientists very much. Of course, we see correspondents on television, but they are saying what they are "supposed to say", not discussing their involved and difficult-to-understand research.
This may be journalists' fault, but it may also be the scientists' fault. Scientists' have had a notorious issue explaining their research findings to the everyday Joe. Through the media, Joe the plumber is starting to be able to understand politics (at least more than he understands chemistry research), but at what cost? I wonder if this bias will affect the new media as research starts to penetrate the media through interwebular outlets.
I definitely agree that scientists are not the best at explaining their research findings. Heck, sometimes I have a hard time even sort of understanding them. However, we could view journalists as a sort of linkage institution. I think the general public relies on journalists to tell them what exactly the ] scientists are saying. When it comes to politics, we definitely rely on journalists to tell us about politics, trends, and the like. Personally, I think it is good for the average Joe to have minimal understanding of politics instead of having no knowledge at all.
ReplyDelete