#2 2009-07-04 20:05:58
If you only knew the scummy surface of what 'peer-reviewed' journals deigned to print, you'd shoot yourself now.
Offline
#3 2009-07-04 20:13:52
That's what I find so hilarious about it, though. We didn't even need bad science published in a peer-reviewed journal. Literally every single thing the newspaper said was completely wrong, even down to the plural on "scientists".
Offline
#4 2009-07-04 21:35:15
Science reporting sucks. Does the news similarly fuck it up when reporting on other fields?
Offline
#5 2009-07-04 22:09:38
phoQ wrote:
Science reporting sucks. Does the news similarly fuck it up when reporting on other fields?
Yep. I've been quoted saying things I didn't quite say, by a reporter who told me I wasn't going to be quoted. No big deal in that case, but since then, "Talk to our PIO".
Offline
#6 2009-07-05 10:39:02
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#7 2009-07-05 21:08:31
phoQ wrote:
Science reporting sucks. Does the news similarly fuck it up when reporting on other fields?
Yes. Law. All. The. Time.
Offline
#8 2009-07-06 02:56:22
headkicker_girl wrote:
phoQ wrote:
Science reporting sucks. Does the news similarly fuck it up when reporting on other fields?
Yes. Law. All. The. Time.
Tech reporting is pretty bad sometimes. Usually they get the gist of it, but if a journalist ever has to report on a story with any kind of nuance, like say, the Google Books orphaned works controversy, then you can guarantee they will at best omit the important parts, and at worst mischaracterize the entire issue.
Offline
#9 2009-07-06 15:57:08
Thanks. I already knew TV and movies (including documentaries) misrepresent every field. Now y’all have me convinced that the news doesn’t get it right either. The greater the number of people that believe something, the less likely it is to be true.
Offline
