upvote
> However, I have sadly come to feel that many journalists who write about science, and perhaps even some scientists, see their role as activism toward a specific outcome rather than discovering and describing reality as it exists.

That's not a feeling, for journalism anyway it's an explicit fact. The Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) - the primary agency that reviews and accredits journalism programs across the United States and whose mandates directly shape the curricula of over 100 universities - has changed their standards over the years away from emphasis on truth and towards emphasis on advocating change to institute certain policies. See https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan . They still mention truth, but almost tangentially among long lists of outcomes that journalists must pursue. The current generation of journalists were trained by these principles.

The Associated Press (AP) StyleBook https://www.apstylebook.com/ similarly polices the language that journalists use to favor certain policy outcomes, with some news organizations requiring compliance as a condition of employment.

reply
please review your first link and read their mission statement; there are three items, and one of those is truth.

“Relentlessly strive to assure information integrity, assuring that truth is gathered and reported.”

https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan

reply
It’s literally the last clause of the last item, basically an afterthought.

> 1. Reimagine teaching and learning of journalism/communication to serve the public.

> 2. Forge diverse and inclusive programs where differences are celebrated, equity is pursued, and diverse communities are served through improved communication and journalism instruction.

> 3. Relentlessly strive to assure information integrity, assuring that truth is gathered and reported.

reply
an explicit mention in their vision* statement is hardly an afterthought. it’s also the second item in their multi-point action plan. and other mentions elsewhere.
reply
But what exactly are you fighting for? What benefits are there to plastic food packaging, plastic kitchen utensils, kitchenware/food storage, clothing?

Plastic packaging made 20% of EU's total packaging waste in 2023 out of which 42% were recycled/downcycled. Personally plastic food packaging is the biggest portion of my family's waste output.

Plastic kitchen utensils like black plastic ladles are not durable (they break easily), and visibly degrade when exposed to heat or acidic food, unlike metal or wooden counterparts...

Plastic kitchenware and food storage containers are also considerably less durable than equivalent metal or glass products. They also stain and degrade when in contact with acidic or other specific foods...

I take it you've worn synthetic clothes, need I go into detail about how uncomfortable that is?

On top of that, most of these are tied with fossil fuel supply and prices, and you can see for yourself what's going on with that right now...

p.s. I'm pretty sure use of metal, glass, and wood is not marxism...

reply
Those are all great reasons. What's the need to push for yet-to-be-subtantiated fears of microplastics?

What is OP fighting for? Idk, an unbiased view of reality, maybe?

reply
My point is that limiting plastic use (especially single-use plastic) is a win in my book even if it is ultimately done for the wrong reason. Thus it's not worth my time going out of my way to disprove specific research that still ultimately points out the need to curtail plastic use...
reply
What benefits? Single use plastics have one purpose and one purpose only: allow for fossil fuel producers to dispose of the ethane byproduct that accumulates during extraction. They get paid for the disposal vs having to process it as waste themselves.
reply
[flagged]
reply
"Straight Up Fool"-ism is running rampant on HN
reply