For many stories it takes seeking out specialty sources who know the background to get accurate facts. Most reporters from general news sources don't have much depth to their education. When a story is sketchy a lot of reporters will weave a story from what they have instead of just admit that the picture is unclear.
I saw that when I was in high school. A local girl of about 9 got kidnapped from my town and it was a major story in the Los Angeles area for weeks. I lived in a suburb so obscure most Angelinos had never heard of it. My parents knew the girl's grandparents so they got the story straight from the family. The local news was all over the map with the facts. Few could even get what town she lived in right.
The bulk of news coverage by general news outlets, especially of complex subjects, is generally fairly poor. People with strong technical or scientific backgrounds don't tend to go into the news. There are a few people who understand the law well who are reporting the news and they usually get those details right, but most news people have no specialist education at all.
There are a few people out there who don't have specialist knowledge who work to get the facts straight. There is only one who has gotten the technical facts straight on every story I've seen from them where I knew the technical or scientific background to the story.
In the world of EVs, if I want to understand what the actual facts of a story about them are, I seek out stories in the EV media to fill in the details. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions, a story that has the facts straight helps me make up my own mind.
Another problem with the news today is that most people can't tell the difference between an assertion and an argument (the logical kind). They put the same weight on the opinion parts of news coverage as they do the factual parts of the news. I do think there should be a law requiring the two to be clearly labeled, but I'm so used to parsing the two, I look at a story, parse out the facts and set aside the opinion parts.
The NYT story that started this discussion was too heavy on opinion and too light on facts, but there were some facts in there. My lawyer SO opined that Tesla will get out of this lawsuit very quickly. The pickup driver made an unsafe lane change and the Model 3 driver had AP set to a speed that was both over the speed limit and unsafe for conditions. The rest is sensationalized fluff that doesn't mean much.
It is disappointing that it made it to the NYT. Historically they have been better than that, but very poor reporting slipped through the cracks. It was a holiday weekend, maybe the B team was running the editorial department?
I saw that when I was in high school. A local girl of about 9 got kidnapped from my town and it was a major story in the Los Angeles area for weeks. I lived in a suburb so obscure most Angelinos had never heard of it. My parents knew the girl's grandparents so they got the story straight from the family. The local news was all over the map with the facts. Few could even get what town she lived in right.
The bulk of news coverage by general news outlets, especially of complex subjects, is generally fairly poor. People with strong technical or scientific backgrounds don't tend to go into the news. There are a few people who understand the law well who are reporting the news and they usually get those details right, but most news people have no specialist education at all.
There are a few people out there who don't have specialist knowledge who work to get the facts straight. There is only one who has gotten the technical facts straight on every story I've seen from them where I knew the technical or scientific background to the story.
In the world of EVs, if I want to understand what the actual facts of a story about them are, I seek out stories in the EV media to fill in the details. Even if I don't agree with the conclusions, a story that has the facts straight helps me make up my own mind.
Another problem with the news today is that most people can't tell the difference between an assertion and an argument (the logical kind). They put the same weight on the opinion parts of news coverage as they do the factual parts of the news. I do think there should be a law requiring the two to be clearly labeled, but I'm so used to parsing the two, I look at a story, parse out the facts and set aside the opinion parts.
The NYT story that started this discussion was too heavy on opinion and too light on facts, but there were some facts in there. My lawyer SO opined that Tesla will get out of this lawsuit very quickly. The pickup driver made an unsafe lane change and the Model 3 driver had AP set to a speed that was both over the speed limit and unsafe for conditions. The rest is sensationalized fluff that doesn't mean much.
It is disappointing that it made it to the NYT. Historically they have been better than that, but very poor reporting slipped through the cracks. It was a holiday weekend, maybe the B team was running the editorial department?
