Virtual reality has been the media’s buzzword of choice for the past few months. VR is a cool new tech that has the potential to change how we socialize, relax and learn.

Here’s the problem — journalists aren’t famous for understanding math or science, and they’re even worse at predicting the future. Shrinking newsrooms and pressure to create click-worthy headlines are worsening this, leading to VR articles ranging from confusing to maddening.

Below are my tips to help the world’s journalists elevate their writing and communicate virtual reality accurately.

Researchers and entrenched companies are weak sources.

Journalists have historically turned to experts to provide context and insight into obscure fields. This isn’t happening for stories on virtual reality, likely because media don’t know who to speak to.

There simply aren’t academics or huge companies that can speak to the current state of virtual reality on a quick turnaround.

Luckily, Palmer Luckey isn’t the only VR startup founder. Any large city has one or more VR companies run by early adopters who are passionate about the subject and know it inside and out. Google “[your city] virtual reality company” to find them, or contact the person who runs the VR Meetup in your town.

Don’t judge VR based on Google Cardboard.

You get what you pay for with anything, VR included. Google Cardboard is an entry level product that isn’t in the same league as any other headset (including the Samsung Gear).

Google Cardboard doesn’t have positional tracking and is limited to your phone’s screen resolution. For $10, it’s not a bad intro to the world of VR, but it should never be compared to proper headsets. Which brings me to my next point…

Oculus isn’t the only high-end headset.

Oculus has a cool name and is owned by Facebook, but the Rift isn’t the only high-end headset out there. In fact, I don’t think it’s even the best one.

I’m partial to the HTC Vive, which lets you move around in a 5 by 5 meter space and ships with controllers. In comparison, the Oculus Rift is focused on seated experiences and won’t have controllers until later this year.

Despite this, the Oculus Rift has 2x the Google News hits. Must be the Zuckerberg effect.

360 degree video isn’t the same as virtual reality.

360 video has received a lot of media attention lately and has been called the “gateway drug to virtual reality”. Facebook and YouTube support 360 video in their app and desktop viewers, and you can watch these videos on most headsets.

Here’s the thing: just because you can consume something in a VR headset doesn’t make it virtual reality. Reality requires movement and interaction; 360 videos offer rotation and very limited interaction. What’s worse, most videos aren’t even stereoscopic.

VR will improve real-life experiences, not replace them.

It’s tempting to think that we are going to build Earth 2.0 in virtual reality and never come out of our headsets, but I doubt that’s the case. Why would you go to a grocery store in VR when you can just do the same in real life?

What’s interesting about virtual reality is how it will improve/augment real life experiences. Say you’re buying a car and want to check out a few models. Loading them up in VR gives you a sense of size, dashboard placement, trunk space, colours, etc. But you’re still going to go to the dealer to buy the car.

Another misconception is that VR won’t be social, and we’re all going to become addicted hermits. Companies like AltspaceVR have already created social environments for VR. As more people have headsets, expect social applications to rise.

TLDR: The future isn’t scary, but miscommunicating VR is.