Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

10. While not untrue

Reply to rug (Original post)

Sun May 5, 2013, 04:15 PM

May 2013

the problem of "reporters" being generally ignorant of the topics on which they write is by no means confined to religion. Economics, science, history, foreign affairs, education, to name but a few, are abysmally covered in all but the largest newspapers, and sometimes even there. The just as poorly informed public assumes that anyone with a byline who can string two coherent sentences together knows what they're talking about, but it just ain't so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

VIEWPOINT: The American Media Needs To Take A Theology Class (Or Three) [View all] rug May 2013 OP

i think a 'comparative religion' course would be better.. Phillip McCleod May 2013 #1

The comparison of organizations is not the same as a comparison of ideologies. rug May 2013 #2

Agreed. Silver Gaia May 2013 #8

You got to love the NYT's screw-up. hrmjustin May 2013 #3

I'm surprised that even made it into print. rug May 2013 #4

I'm not! n/t hrmjustin May 2013 #5

They must have made an Assumption. rug May 2013 #6

Either lazy, ignorant, or adding the reporters personal belief. hrmjustin May 2013 #9

I wish I were surprised okasha May 2013 #7

I disagree with the claim that there's anything wrong with the correction, though muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #13

I agree the correction is not bad. I would have explained in more detail but it got better. hrmjustin May 2013 #14

While not untrue skepticscott May 2013 #10

It's perfectly reasonable that Sister Campbell had a candidate she intended to vote for. dimbear May 2013 #11

I'll get you registered by 2016. rug May 2013 #12