In message , Bruce
writes
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:37:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce
saying something like:

There are science magazines that aim slightly higher up the
intellectual scale, the best known being "New Scientist". It isn't
highly rated by scientists, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

Even NS is a bit dumbed-down compared to what it used to be.

New scientist is the guardian with slightly bigger words.

Totally biassed politically, almost anti-science, and only bearable when
the so called journalist has written verbatim down something they were
given but didn't understand.


That's true of most periodicals, not just New Scientist.

I think anyone who tries to explain science to non-specialists has a
very difficult job on their hands. That's not to say that New
Scientist could not do better, just that it is a difficult job. By
the time you have removed most of the jargon to make it accessible to
non-specialists, most of the content has also disappeared.

Breakfast TV the other day "Ooh far too technical"

Err what , really it wasn't, no wonder we are breeding a generation of
hairdressers


--
geoff