And sometimes we just get caught up in the public frenzy of a story and forget to step back and question, question, question. We need to make certain our editors and reporters understand The Scientific Method. Scientists are much more comfortable with uncertainty than are journalists and are less likely to jump to conclusions or to make black and white out of gray. We need to introduce editors and reporters to the mysterious world of mathematics. We need to develop reporting and writing skills to present complexities in an interesting way.
Journalists often are uncomfortable with ambiguity.
But some stories are mysteries, like the one about the frogs with the extra, deformed legs, and the politically-charged global warming hypothesis. We don't know what causes those extra frog legs, and we don't know whether Mother Nature or Mankind is causing the earth's surface to warm, although much of the reporting would suggest that we do know. I think we also need to re-examine the relationship between editor and reporter. But sometimes it can be too cozy. Prosecute the story To strengthen the editing function I propose we develop training of editors and sub-editors in the craft of prosecuting the story.