Scientific research is supposed to be self explanatory. Any attempt to write about it is merely a barrier or middle man. Why take a secondary account, when a primary one is available? The original, raw, experimental data is what is actually important.
Most of what constitutes science in today’s media is merely laypeople parroting the most simplistic and politically convenient views of the latest study that comes across their desk. How many of these people are actually qualified to discuss the information and issues? The answer is approximately none. All of the real experts are generally busy, you know, being actual scientists.
Perhaps one of the best case studies in this regard is that of climate change a.k.a. global warming. Is global warming real? Yes. Is it anything like what it is portrayed to be? No, not even close.
Talk to your typical modern idiot or political shill, and they will tell you rather grandiose tales of how the oceans are going to swallow the Earth and we’ll all be cannibals in the next decade. Go through the inconvenience of actually talking to someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about and a completely different picture appears.
It’s a simple fact that the Earth is steadily getting hotter, global climates are shifting, and that excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere are playing some sort of role. Immediately following this will be a series of statements encouraging skepticism and explaining the profound limitations of our understanding.
Missing from science but not media “science” are the gloom and doom, the drama and the taking of sides, the rooting for the good team versus the ignorant evil bad guys. The truth is far more complicated and far less exciting.