One of the most important insights that my classmates and I made through the Hot Topic project is that popular media reports synthesize scientific studies in a way that makes the information more accessible to the common public. Certain magazines, news outlets and blogs choose which information to include, and curate it in a way that makes it more understandable for their readers. Some popular media sources even misconstrue scientific findings in order to make more definitive claims and gain more readership.

If I were a scientific journalist New York Times, I would simplify information in a way that stays true to the original peer-reviewed scientific article. In order to still keep the essence of the scientific study, I would include short quotes of necessary information, as well as some convincing numerical data. In addition, I would try to create some very simplified graphs of whatever results were collected, especially if there is a visible trend, because I feel like simple graphs could be made sense of easier.

I believe that good scientific journalist should always maintain a healthy skepticism in their writing, like the author of my popular media article did. Journalists should mention that although the studies may support one argument, there is still room for more development. A popular media article would be really helpful if it even included some counterclaims, or evidence for the other side because it would explore the topic in more depth, and would help the reader develop other theories or questions.