I say this as someone on that side of the political spectrum.
That's probably where the journalists find people to interview, likely because a large majority of journalists are active on Twitter.
This definitely isn't the only place, because there are free services like SciLine by the AAAS (source: https://www.sciline.org) and many others for connecting journalists to researchers. Many universities also have their own expert directories set up, and journalists can also find papers and contact their authors.
However, for many journalists on deadline, it's just far less effort to message vocal professors on Twitter, so this may be a reason for this effect if it's true. The people who market their research more on Twitter may be more likely to get covered in the press, and thus interviewed.
I'm not buying it. Science reporting from university press departments is just as bad if not worse, and they are funded by the university not advertising (tuition, grants, alumni donations, etc..)
From an enjoyment side, writing is hard, but for a lot of people, it's much easier than research. There are fewer credentials needed for a career in science journalism versus scientific research (a Bachelor's only versus a PhD for many senior scientist positions). I know a lot of people who have a natural skill at writing who decided to major in a science field for one reason or another, performed okay-ish at their courses, and tried to get back to writing work.
The end result is also similar writing for a magazine/newspaper versus a university. A university may have higher standards for accuracy and precision (especially if an interviewed scientist wants to review it, while a newspaper/magazine may have a policy to avoid sharing drafts to avoid bias in the article). However, higher-end magazines (like the New Yorker) have more prestige. There is also far less room at universities for dissent (e.g. presenting an opposing scientific view or publishing investigative work).
So what you get is worthless fanboy journalism in which those who are smart enough to ask tough questions get removed, and those who are left just want to copy paste university press releases.
In turn that beds general scepticism amongst the population because they can sense that nobody is challenging the "experts".
An example, "My uncle became blind because of diabetes", similar answer: "I don't buy it, my father is diabetic and never got blind". Doesn't work.
In other words, the reason why scientific journalism in non-university press could be bad for various different reason than university press.
> It is ALL about click bait to drive digital advertising
(Emphasis my own.) Science reporting is still crap even when it isn't funded by advertising, so there's obviously more going on than the funding model making things shit. The BBC and CBC both have crappy science reporting too, as do university press departments. These counter-examples refute the claim which was stated too strongly (I do think advertising plays some role in it, but obviously not all.)
It's not about people not wanting to pay, it's that the value of a single article is too small to charge money for. A single article is maybe worth a hundredth of a cent to me. There's no viable mechanism for me to pay a hundredth of a cent to a writer, just transaction fees will be more than the amount transacted.
I'm not going to pay a subscription to a site I might not ever visit again. I'm also not going to pay a subscription fee to every site I come across that might have a decently written article once in a while. Advertising ends up being the only viable way to "charge" a tiny fraction of a cent to readers.
What if the site was consistenly putting decent articles? I think one of the argument is that you would see more of those decent articles if people were more enclined to follow a subscription model where the journal is accountable to its customers.
I think this argument holds up. For example, publications like the Scientific American and The Scientist tend to be very high quality in terms of accuracy (usually with unobtrusive citations, if I recall correctly). It's too bad their subscriptions prices are so high; they were hundreds of dollars a year if I remember correctly, versus less than 50 dollars a year for other magazines.
Ii'm not sure about how financially successful they are, but I found myself struggling to justify such a subscription price, when the purpose was essentially edu-tainment. The publications that can more easily get people to pay more, in my view, ostensibly help people make more money or find career success, which is why industry publications like STAT for biotech/medicine (and more generally, publications like the WSJ/Bloomberg) tend to be more financially successful.
This is an interesting hypothesis, because PBS is near the top of my quality ranking for news orgs while NPR is near the bottom (obviously excluding the long-tail of sources I don't often encounter, like breitbart). I don't see much of a correlation with manner of funding.
Despite? Or because of it? Left leaning politics need trust worthy news to advance, right leaning politics don't as their goal is to maintain tradition and the status quo. If nobody mobilises the right wing polices win by default, noise instead of news helps to create apathy, apathy is the bread of the status quo.
?>>>? Right leaning politics need trust worthy news to survive, left leaning politics don't as their goal is to upset tradition and revolt on the status quo. If nobody maintains the status quo the left wing polices win by default, noise instead of news helps to create chaos, choas is the bread of revolution and malcontent.
As you can see, this sort of "I define my side to be the more accurate view of reality" is highly malleable and can be used to support any side with semi-convincing "just so" stories.
And you're not actually describing the left-wing/right-wing divide here (itself a highly simplistic and outdated view of politics and economics dating from more than a century), you're describing the conservative/progressive divide, which tends to correlate with the left/right divide in the US, which might be where you are from. But even there the correlation is not perfect, Trump for example was fairly 'progressive' in his populist politics, his extensive engagement with the public on Twitter was a very novel form of presidential press releases that upseted many traditions and angered many political conservatives. See how conservative/progressive is multi-dimensional ?, you're just too used to a few dominant dimensions being coorelated with a left\right slant.
Furthermore, even accepting the dubious renaming of conservative\progressive to right-wing\left-wing, it's still a leap of faith from here to assuming that the progressive side always benefits from representing truth and reality as it is. In fact, this is almost gauranteed to be false, because even if conservatives are randomly guessing, they would still get roughly 50% of the world right, and since progressives always oppose conservatives in this hyper-polarized political climate, they are gauranteed to be wrong that 50% of the time. This seems to be supported by reality as being a progressive is associated with a higher chance of believing there are 700 genders and that biological males are women, so there must be at least some situations where progressives ("Left-Wing" in your parlance) benefit from a mis-representation of reality.
Can you elaborate on this? Society has inertia, history has inertia, how is this "nobody mantains status quo" work?
It refers to when a media outlet thinks that everything the Trump admin does is an unprecedented terrible action, even when that thing is humanitarian aid or peace treaties in the middle east.