My guess would be that they are not trained to know better and that they have to write about something, anything really, that has some chance of grabbing reader attention and isn't related to celebrity culture.
What's more interesting then a headline that promises some scientific breakthru is about to change the world?
The real issue, I believe, is that there is no accountability for almost anyone these days. If there is some upside in publishing or reporting on questionable science, and no downside, what is the incentive not to do it?
> My guess would be that they are not trained to know better and that they have to write about something, anything really, that has some chance of grabbing reader attention and isn't related to celebrity culture.
I fear that no training can be helpful if you're supposed to have 10 stories written by this afternoon, and they'd better be good at attracting readers, or else.
> The real issue, I believe, is that there is no accountability for almost anyone these days. If there is some upside in publishing or reporting on questionable science, and no downside, what is the incentive not to do it?
I agree. I think you captured the essence of the problem. There is no immediate cost to doing this (if people had an actual span of attention, most of the news sites would go banrkupt quickly), and clear benefits. There is no direct price to be paid for misleading people, and the accumulated costs are apparent only years later, in the form of growing distrust towards everything, which destroys society from inside.
What's more interesting then a headline that promises some scientific breakthru is about to change the world?
The real issue, I believe, is that there is no accountability for almost anyone these days. If there is some upside in publishing or reporting on questionable science, and no downside, what is the incentive not to do it?