Floating down to Camelot

In recent years I've taken to reading more and more blogs and less and less newspapers. If I do read newspapers it tends to be for entertainment -- some people read Heat for a laugh, I read The Times. Blogs have their own problems of course, but I feel if you're reading some police inspector's account of the impact of government bureaucracy on police effectiveness, you at least discover one small patch of reality, especially if it's then followed by 50 comments from other serving police officers. Much like I value your blog for insight from the point of view of a children's librarian, on, say, the value of the national curriculum. Newspapers are more ambitious in scope, but the content is TOTAL bollocks! And yes, as you say, many people haven't twigged that. I didn't really until I became an expert in science, and noticed that whenever science was reported in a newspaper, it was (almost always) utter bollocks. Even then I initially thought this was because most journalists are arts grads, and assumed their coverage of politics, economics etc could not, surely, be at the same level of utter codswallop. And indeed even now I catch myself falling into the trap of placing any level of reliability on something I read in a newspaper! (just naturally credulous, me.) Maybe if you are not expert in anything, or if your area of expertise happens not to feature in newspapers, you don't go through this process?

Neuromancer