The Media Needs More Skeptics

If you watch the news at all these days you might well have noticed that there is a distinct lack of skepticism in much of the reporting being done. There is still some skepticism left when it comes to reporting on politics, crime and the economy, although not enough, in my opinion. The place where it seems critical thinking has taken the worst hit though, is in the stories that most consider to be "fluff", human interest items as well as health reporting.

If you watch these segments on almost any news broadcast, you'll notice that there is almost no hard questioning of the subjects of these stories. Take a story of so called psychic phenomena, you'd be lucky to see even one brief comment from a skeptic or scientist about the evidence, ( or rather lack thereof) of psychic abilities. On the other hand the rest of the piece will feature testimonials as to just how real these powers are, leading the viewer to believe that there is probably something to all of it.

This is one of the big problems in journalism, it's part of a journalists training to present both sides of an issue. While that should be applauded when it comes to matters of opinion, balance really has no place when it comes to science. The scientific method doesn't require equal time when it come to different theories, it requires that we accept those theories that prove correct under rigorous testing, and discard those that fail. I think it's this journalistic training coupled with a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles that lead most journalists to treat science just like any other topic where there are multiple sides to the issue.
I think there are other reasons why pseudosciences and other crackpot theories get a pass when it come to broadcast news, and I'd like to touch briefly on a couple.

The 24 hour news cycle. With the news being produced 24-7 there is less time to properly develop a story. There needs to be fresh content being fed to the machine as soon as it becomes available in order to keep up with, or ahead of the competition. In order to do so, accuracy, especially when it comes to scientific topics, falls by the wayside. Most scientific items take far too much time to get the reporting accurate, if you're a reporter with little or no scientific training it takes too long to get acquainted with the material necessary to understand the topic.
This dovetails nicely with my next item.

Ratings over reporting. TV news today is big business. Where once the first priority of news was informing the public, that has now become a byproduct in the quest for higher ratings. Ratings which generate higher revenue. Rather than get a story right, it's better to make it entertaining in order to get more people watching.
This has help to contribute in making news less about reporting facts and more about entertainment. In doing so it has made celebrities out of those that report the news. This has led more and more people to seek a career in news not out of a passion to inform the public about issues that need to be told, but rather out a passion to be on TV, to be a star.

Now I don't know who is to blame for this current atmosphere of celebrity worship, the public or the news business, I think it's a chicken and egg scenario, myself. Either way though, this lack of interest in all things science, and the rise in popularity of all things new age and so called "spiritual" by the population at large is reflected in the reporting of most major news outlets.
I think these things, (along with others I'm sure) have come together to create a perfect storm of apathy in news as far as accurately reporting on matters of scientific importance.