ScienceProgress: The Line Between Science and Journalism is

[RJN]

ScienceProgress: The Line Between Science and Journalism is Getting Blurry….Again

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/12/ ... rry-again/

For the greatest part of human history, none of those distinctions made any sense. Most of communication contained information about what is new, some information about the way the world works, and a phatic component. Knowing how the world works, knowing what is happening in that world right now, and knowing if you should trust the messenger, were all important for survival.

...

The two domains of communicating about what is new and how the world works – journalism and science – have fused again. Both are now starting to get done by teams that involve both professionals and amateurs. Both are now led by personalities who are getting well-known in the public due to their phatic communication in a variety of old and new media.

[Skyman55]

I note from your details thet you are from the USA.

I have to confess that I'm not as familiar with the American press as I'd like but the second paragraph of your quote above
just doesn't fit the British profile.

I read mostly popular science publications, I subscribe to New Scientist and National Geographic. The articles in these publications are
usually well researched, well written, objective accounts.

The standard of the British press is a low as it has ever been. The content consists mainly of unresearched, badly written, provocative drivel.
A good deal of it is blatant lies - hence the numerous libel actions.

Whilst I don't dispute that someone like Roger Penrose has made himself well known to the public -there is no way you could classify 'The Emperors New Mind' as a 'phatic communication'