Critical negligence

“The journalists don’t understand anything,” “They heard the ringing, but they don’t know where it is,” “Don’t take it seriously, the journalists wrote it”—each of us has heard these or similar phrases more than once. Media representatives themselves have an ambivalent attitude towards such statements. On the one hand, of course, it’s a shame to hear such an unflattering assessment of your work. But on the other hand, the significance of any judgment very much depends on who expresses it. And therefore, when accusations of writing nonsense and incompetence come from random people, and even more so if they do not have special education, many journalists often do not pay attention to them at all.

And although such a position looks snobbish and one would really like to call it fundamentally wrong, it is often justified. It’s not very difficult to criticize something, especially if the critic’s only argument is rhetorical complaints about stupidity and a lot of exclamation marks. But in some cases, the comments are much more serious (and at this point I will smoothly move from journalism in general to science journalism). Articles about discoveries in physics, chemistry, linguistics or any other discipline are understandably read not only by people for whom science is just a hobby, but also by professionals in the relevant fields. These people are engaged in scientific activities every day, they deeply understand the cause-and-effect relationships within their science and at the same time understand the “subtleties”.

Among professionals there are people who tend to forgive journalists for minor mistakes, especially if, in general, the article approximately correctly reflects the real situation, and there are quite a lot of such people (good specialists generally tend to be lenient towards those who are not as competent as them). But there is also exactly the opposite type - savvy specialists who meticulously examine any note whose author has encroached on their patrimony, and scrupulously pull out all the fleas from the text. Moreover, such people often point out mistakes in an extremely caustic manner, without hiding their contempt for amateurs.

Criticism from such people is certainly useful, since sometimes they actually find serious flaws that distort the meaning of a phenomenon or experiment. Thanks to the comments of professionals, a journalist can not only correct this particular text, but at the same time raise his own level of understanding of any problem. But on the other hand, analysis of notes, during which they speak very unflatteringly about their author, harms the reputation of the journalist. And taking into account the fact that most of these analyzes are carried out on the Internet, hundreds of potential readers can find out that the author of a particular article is an incompetent layman.

And here’s the paradox: very often the notes of the best representatives of the scientific journalist profession are subjected to public flogging. The explanation for the paradox is very simple. Suppose a certain talented journalist Ivanov writes popular science articles, and he writes them well. Gradually, Ivanov’s surname is becoming more and more famous among people interested in science, and, among other things, his notes are beginning to be read by those who are professionally involved in, say, chemistry. Chemists recommend Ivanov's notes to their colleagues, and sooner or later his texts come to the attention of amateur critics. The greater Ivanov’s popularity, the more such specialists will pick apart his texts. And if professional scientists understand that critics often cling to trifles, then to an unprepared person the claims made may seem quite serious, and he will be strengthened in the idea that Ivanov is writing about something he does not understand.

The result of this sad paradox may be a decline in trust in the best of science journalists. It is unlikely that experts who criticize popular science articles are purposefully seeking such an outcome: after the publication of critical comments, further events develop regardless of the critic’s wishes. Taking this into account, those who want to criticize another text, albeit good, but containing minor flaws, should either express their dissatisfaction more restrainedly, or contact the author directly, without involving all visitors to their blog or website in the dialogue. Of course, this should only be done if the critic’s goal is to point out mistakes, and not to once again emphasize to himself and others his own importance and intelligence.