Great article from the Columbia Journalism Review on the standoffish relationship between political scientists and journalists. Both purport to do the same thing: explain politics. But each has a very different MO.
Here's my take, really just a rehashing of CJR:
The political scientist's criticism of pop journalism: the media are full of overreactions to the day's soundbites and polls. A couple of anecdotes from self-serving sources do not constitute analysis. Dig deeper. It's about structure, not just personality.
The beat journalist's criticism of polisci: ivory tower types rely too much on stats and models. The findings are inaccessible, and often unsurprising. Cautious explanations for political events typically arrive years too late to have any meaningful impact. Get your finger on the pulse.
No comments:
Post a Comment