As a part-time journalist
, I would have to say that I agree somewhat to this. However, I also end up in the reverse
situation. Where a person from the physics
dept. has the 'I have done this for 20 years so I don't have to explain anything to you, creep, because I don't want to and I don't care to correct you because it's easier to deny than correct a statement
It's a problem, really. Journalists that don't ask enough, and scientists that don't explain enough. Also, it's a problem where a seemingly credible scientist 'proves' a new theory for a clueless journalist, and the theory is pure shit. Like 'earth radiation', (Notice that it doesn't say what kind of radiation) a fad among some German scientists which they couldn't prove. A lot of journalists fell for this one because no other scientists protested. They just chose to ignore it, because it was not at their level.
Most journalists I know really strive to get things right, and take it very personally if there's an error in their work. The worst example I've seen, is an article a friend wrote. He sent the article to the professor he interviewed for approval and error correction and got an OK on the article. Of course, the article contained several horrible errors and the professor went to the competing newspaper and complained about the journalist. The professor never read the article, but approved it anyway...