Another Reason Not To Trust Corporate Media

[peristaltor]

Carl Zimmer eloquently notes that the media noise machine seems to be very selective about what science it decides is newsworthy:

Two forces are at play here. One is that the huge premium in the science writing world on stories about new ideas. It was such a shock to think that methane was churning out of plants, particularly with global warming becoming such a hot topic. The science writing machine is much worse at follow-up. Does the editorial unconscious say, "Hey, we've already written about that. Let's move on"? Or perhaps it would look bad to say, "Remember that story with the big headline a while back? Well never mind, looks like it may have been wrong."

This concerns a story first published -- and widely, widely touted -- last year that suggested methane from plants may have been a big contributer to GW gasses, now corrected amidst almost no fanfare a year later.

At times like these I believe we need a law: If a reporter/pundit/editorialist is found to be factually inaccurate about any topic, they should be forced to correct the record with as much coverage as was given the original, invalid report. Front page headlines correcting inaccurate front page reports. No fair burying the humble pie where no one will think to look.

Grrr. . . .

X-Posted to boiling_frog, with interesting commentary.