I was saying that it's demonstrably true that gross exaggerations of research findings are tolerated. Then I switched to a statement that I can't, of course, demonstrate or prove. I guess I didn't phrase that well.
Journotraveler, I don't think of journalists as cynical manipulators
And I think you have every right to feel frustrated by blanket statements to that effect. At the same time, I do
see serious problems with the way non-academic media present research. But, although I recognize those problems, I don't
think that journalists are hacks. It's like how I think there are serious problems with the way the doctor-patient relationship is constructed, but I don't distrust doctors.
Well, I don't have any particular quarrel with the article from the OP. But a degree in astrophysics doesn't qualify her to interpret research related to psychology. I have degrees too, and they don't mean that I'm qualified to interpret astrophysics research. See, that's one of the problems I'm talking about. A person really needs to have expertise in a field in order to properly evaluate the research that comes out of it. Sure, I can read through an astrophysics journal, and look up all the unfamiliar math and definitions. But I still won't really
understand what I've read. I won't understand what the results actually are, I won't understand what they mean for the field, and I won't be able to evaluate their legitimacy or the way the study was designed.