"two of the areas that journalism is the worst at covering: science and gender."

It actually combines all three of the things journalism is terrible at! Science, gender, and the law.

Just look at all the articles about Rasha Alawieh, the Lebanese doctor who last week was refused permission to enter the US at the Boston Airport border check, and sent back to Lebanon. ALL the headlines say "DOCTOR DEPORTED" or "DEPORTED SURGEON" or deported, deported, deported.

She wasn't deported. "Deported" means that an immigrant who is in the US, either legally or illegally, is sent back to their home country. Before a person can be deported they get due process: a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether they should be deported.

But Alawieh wasn't deported. She was denied admission to the country. Any random border agent can deny a foreign citizen admission to the country, even if the US consulate abroad gave that person a visa. No judge is required.

For background, per the articles I read and the few unsealed pleadings in her case, Alawieh was refused permission to enter apparently because it emerged that she had been in Lebanon to attend the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a terrorist who was responsible for at least several hundred deaths, including the deaths of American. And she allegedly had a bunch of pro-Hezbollah memes on her phone, which she had clumsily tried to delete 2 days before boarding her flight to the US.

Sorry for my rant, but these distinctions matter. I've seen trials that I was part of be completely misrepresented by reporters who were there listening to the testimony, generally because the reporters do NOT UNDERSTAND what they're hearing. And in all the uproar about Trump's immigration escapades this year, I have yet to see a mainstream news article that accurately reported what was happening from a legal perspective.

I've also yet to see a mainstream article that accurately described the legal perspectives on trans issues. The legal analysis in the media never seems to rise above "But what about their RIGHTS omg this is DISCRIMINATION and discrimination is illegal!" or "Wait but is it mean to trans people? If it makes trans people feel bad it is mean and that is discrimination and discrimination is illegal!"

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

— Michael Crichton, "Why Speculate?" (2002)