Don't judge a book by its cover -- IANS conclusion

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the conclusion of IANS rapped things up nicely.  The book even pulled some points together a little better than I had expected.

As discussed in class, this text could make for a repetitive and redundant read at times. As such, I expected the conclusion to be nothing more than a long, drawn-out reiteration of what had already been mentioned multiple times in the previous chapters.  However, the conclusion nicely connected the author's discussion of journalistic practice within the realm of science reporting with public policy; namely, the authors revealed how the sometimes flawed interpretation of science in the news can form the basis for political policy and legislature.  The authors thus say that "it may...be necessary to differentiate between actual science - the process of discovery through the application of systematic principles of inquiry - from a spurious imitator: 'SCIENCE,' which is intended only to shape public policy." (178) 

As this quote points out, the text as a whole culminates with the idea that pure science and science reporting, which shapes public opinion and political policy, are two inherently different ideas.  Although they are cut from the same cloth and many journalists dedicate their career to reconciling the two, they will always inevitably be at odds with one another - if for no other reason than pure science exists in a world of uncertainty and qualifications while "SCIENCE" exists in a world deadlines and definitiveness. 

 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Don't judge a book by its cover -- IANS conclusion .

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/mt/mt-akdfh_tb.cgi/10834

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.