The Unknown Unknown
This might not seem like a big problem at first, but consider that most scientists rarely know exactly what's going on in the fields of other scientists. From there it does not take much to imagine that anyone not working in science, has even less of an idea or concept of what's going on.
Then the whole top-down syphoned, hierarchically distilled, captivatingly-titled, magazine-focussed, hyped-up, futuristic, hyperbolic and down-right media-frenzied news reports, are the only form of communication to the 'outside world'. And a bad one at that, because it often comes down to attention and/or money seeking.
So how do you, as a generic citizen not involved in science, know what is really going on? This problem revolves around the question 'How are scientists doing science?'. Kind of like how most people eat meat, but never see the source or the process behind their food production. Luckily, slaughtering animals does not cause microblackholes in Geneva; or does it?
Go(o)(g)gles of Clarity
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that scientists are not educators per se and they do not get paid to educate, nor get evaluated based on the results of the classes they teach or the insight of the national population. So why spend time explaining 'how'? The whole system enforces a gap between actual science and media-outlets which interpret with a limited background knowledge.
Similarly, you can experience teachers at universities that are more or less interested in giving a (good) lecture or (concisely and clearly) explain what step to take in solving your course problems. In this case, after a lecture students know as much as the media: 'What are scientists doing'. You might think you've learned something, but you haven't. You are only updated on the scope, a larger vision or direction. You still have no idea 'how' this is done.
Science™
So if clarity is an issue, we should have clear labels saying “This is science” and “This is media”, relating to 'this is how' and 'this is what', accurately. That last part is very, very, very important.Why not make sure that all official outlets at least have a consensus on what and how to report on the happenings of science?
Even though we apply similar labeling to for example food relating to allergies -and people with actual allergies know this is just part of everyday life- we totally forgo a similar label for media outlets. What if we missed this labeling on food? How many people would die of accidental peanut consumption? Somehow, the whole basis for our race's intellectual growth, has no labeling at all other than 'science'. This makes democracy a joke considering choices which require actual knowledge on the topic to make wise decision.
Image source: Dilbert.com
