SLF
There is a world of a difference between a specialist writing about a subject and a journalist trying to write about something that requires a specialist understanding. (And I accept you do allude to that with your comments concerning general news reporting,) To my (admittedly prejudiced) viewpoint, most journalists have an educational background in the humanities, and at the most charitable interpretation prefer to look at the drama because the facts are beyond their understanding. That is my most charitable, as I have met some who seem positively proud of not understanding anything to do with the sciences or technology (defiant insecurity?).
Some examples to consider. Part of my work is flood risk assessment, and the blind absurdity in much of the reporting about the floods last year gave me plenty to get hot under the collar about. (In fact, think the only non-technical reporting with any impression of objectivity was on Jet Blast – go figure). Then again, I have doctors and nurses amongst my friends, and you should hear what they say about the reporting concerning the NHS. My brother drives Eurostar, and I am a ‘Friend’ of the National Railway museum, so we together have a pretty clued in idea about the railways, and the misreporting there borders on the absurd. Even a casual read of Pprune is the prefect antidote for reporting about anything aviation. And so on.
It seems that there are two choices of conclusion from this. The one is that there is a mammoth conspiracy of scientists and technologists all defending their corner, or that journalists are generally incapable of understanding anything more complicated than their own educational experience and that reporting demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge is widespread. The conspiracy theory cannot stand up, as (reductio ad absurdum) there are too many people involved to make any conspiracy viable. Therefore, that just leaves us with the conclusion that much journalism is characterised by an appalling lack of knowledge.
(Sorry, bit of a Jet Blast rant more appropriate to the dumbing down debate.)