Another issue which I don’t think was mentioned in the post is that even if the journo gets it right, there can be further editing before it goes to print which may change the tenor or emphasis of the piece significantly. Then the journalist gets slammed by the bloggers when it wasn’t even his/her fault.

Also – part of the solution, as I said, is not just the existence of blogs, but science bloggers being a resource for journalists and also keeping them honest – to make the primary reporting better.

It’s an imperfect solution because a)the realm of blog responses is not easily accessible to the vast majority of people, and b)you have to go hunting for the responses.

People who have access to the internet are disproportionately young, wealthy, and live in a developed country. Furthermore, only a proportion of those with internet access have the skills or inclination to go hunting for further information or responses to coverage.

I’m fairly adept at using the internet, but I still find it difficult to get a complete picture for myself. I may see something and think, “That doesn’t seem quite right” and then try to go digging, but I’m much more likely to come across the correction in blogs like yours, which I already read. This is a recipe for confirmation bias.

I’m young, fairly wealthy, live in a developed country, am familiar with the internet, have a fairly broad set of blogs I read regularly, and I still have trouble making time to get a thorough science (or general) news feed. There is a real problem with high-quality information dissemination in our society. Blog journalism does not adequately address the failings of broadcast journalism.