One thing that would help a lot with issues like global warming would be to teach people how to tell a hawk from a handsaw so they know how to find credible reporting and also know that a sound bite is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. (I SO enjoy mixing metaphors).

The KISS principle works better for politicians, who can arrive at a position and keep repeating a short summary - but with many scientific issues, there may be no clear bottom line sufficient to make tough decisions easier. E.g., global warming - we are going to have to make some Hobson’s choices with respect to our energy sources, and people aren’t very good at making tough decisions even if they’re fairly well acquainted with the options. So I think the challenge is to write something that explains the subject and enables the reader to shift into a more functional mode. And of course that’s really hard.

Some of the reporters I edit resist making things simple because they don’t want to “dumb down.” After a number of focus groups (of quite intelligent people), it’s clear they’re not stupid. They just don’t have the time (or inclination) to stay current on every issue that pops up. They don’t know your jargon. So report in plain language.

Far too many of us (reporters) spend entirely too much time talking among ourselves instead of talking to ‘real people.’ It gives us a distorted view of how news is used by the general population.