Fighting the “he said, she said” cowardice
The issue of hiding behind the skirts of “getting involved” is something I’ve mentioned before. Letting people spout off (and apply spin) without calling them on their claims shouldn’t count as journalism.
The included link, If “he said, she said” journalism is irretrievably lame, what’s better? is well-worth a read, too, so I’m linking it separately. Good list of reporter guidelines, including some that especially apply to science stories, such as
* There is no such thing as 50/50 balance. There is a truth and we work our damndest to get there.
* Sometimes two viewpoints don’t deserve 50/50 treatment.
The usual approach of the British press is to mercilessly tear everbody to shreds, and i think that’s the best way; zero deference. The appraoch is noticeable by it’s abscence in science reporting, though.
Good articles – and I would contradict Random and say that the BBC is in exactly the same quandary. The problem with the moving beyond what NPR and BBC attempt (and sometimes it fails badly) is that we fall into the trap of:
MY opinion is based on reasoned argument
YOUR opinion is flawed but can be saved
HIS opinion is hidebound dogmatism
The voice of san diego hand book made it quite clear that its agenda (which I approve of wholeheartedly) is acceptable and non-ideological and not dogmatic. But a media organisation having a radical agenda (ie a motivation to promote change) takes it away from being a press/reporting body and change it into an amalgam of press/political body.
I would prefer the BBC and I guess NPR to remain slightly mealy-mouted and dance around the point whilst avoiding too much editorialising RATHER than they become liberal mirror images of Fox/Sky
You can hold everyone to a standard of presenting facts rather than assertions, and do it in a way that is not biased any further than the “facts have a liberal bias” observation that Stephen Colbert has made. That does not have to involve becoming a liberal or conservative pulpit.