This Is a News Website Article About a Scientific Paper 193
jamie passes along a humorous article at The Guardian which pokes fun at the shallow and formulaic science journalism typical of many mainstream news outlets. Quoting:
In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of 'scare quotes' to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever. ... If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims. This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like 'the scientists say' to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist. ... 'Basically, this is a brief soundbite,' the scientist will say, from a department and university that I will give brief credit to. 'The existing science is a bit dodgy, whereas my conclusion seems bang on,' she or he will continue."
This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, who edited this article? This is where I viciously attack the Slashdot editor for punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. Once we clear your elementary faux pas, we can move on.
I recall some of the very basics of this in college but I just skimmed the Wikipedia article on this research and now I'm an expert ready to rip this paper to shreds.
I'm also handy with Google and just found out that their quoted researcher is viewed as a charlatan by another camp of peers in his field. Character assassination and ad hominem attacks follow.
If there was a survey, I question the sample size, method of the survey and diversity. If this is correlation and not causation, I state the obvious and take potshots at my country's shitty educational system. If this is a classification I question the recall rate. If there's any political or monetary incentive for this research to be published then I state it and have immediately won the argument. At that point I can decide who lives and who dies. My comments have leveled whole cities!
The small part of this research that I cannot disprove was already known to me. My Google Fu provides you another link to an article here where this was preliminarily discussed in 2004. And I assure you I was already on top of that this whole time. At this point, I resubtitle Slashdot in a derogatory manner for having stale news. I might even threaten to move on to a superior news aggregator but in reality will spend the rest of my life on Slashdot.
I interpreted my standoffish attitude and tone as asserting my superiority when in actuality I'm a psychologist's wet dream. Done with my post I consider the final word spoken save for one thing. I spin a wheel on my desk and it lands on an internet meme somewhere between "In Soviet Russia" and "All Your Base." I modify a noun or verb to make it potentially funny and insert it at the end.
Since I'm the expert, I might come back and read your responses -- if you're lucky. But the odds are high that I said something incredibly stupid or shortsighted (what with me being outside of my fucking element and all) so I'll probably just ignore you.
Re:Idle - NOT news (Score:1, Insightful)
BAWWW
Let me guess, Journalism major from a "prestigious" school?
Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but as a seasoned slashdotter he should know better than to bother with all this google and wikipedia junk and just go based off of the story summary, if not the title alone.
"a humorous article" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idle - NOT news (Score:5, Insightful)
I firmly believe that such a scathing indictment of the current state of scientific journalism deserves, no, nay, DEMANDS front-page presence!
You know, I'm not even sure if I'm joking. It's always nice to point out mainstream journalism's failings, but it's really only useful if it has a message attached. Some suggestion on how to fix the system, other wise it's simply mockery. The closest this comes to being satire is pointing out that journalists fail to take any sort of real stand in or credit for their pieces any more, and framing it as a bad thing. It'd be nice if it had some sort of analysis of where the problem lies. Is it that journalists just can't be bothered to put in some actual research on stories any more, so they just take what they're told and throw it in a standard framing device? Is it an editorial failing due to demanding stories that assist in SEO and are constrained by word count? Is it an audience failing in that people simply aren't interested in a deeper analysis, or lack the baseline knowledge required to fully grasp a story that was more indepth? Blame multiple sources? How can this be fixed? Piece doesn't say, so it's pretty much just mocking the status quo.
This is a slashdot post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's any political or monetary incentive for this research to be published then I state it and have immediately won the argument.
Immediate attack on the parent poster's political affiliation... obviously the party that he belongs to (judging by this one issue, even though I don't know where he stands on others) is absolutely full of complete psychos and want to do all kinds of other bad things that will destroy civilization as we know it. And they completely fulfill the most extreme version of every stereotype about them.
So of course, my party is full of level-headed reasonable people--every single one of them. Everything that we say is perfect and correct, we're as innocent as a newborn baby's ass, and if only our candidate had been elected last time we lost, the world would be full of unicorns that fart rainbows and save children from horrible deaths.
Re:Not all criticism being equal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that the journalist is making it clear that so-and-so is making the assertion, it's the complete lack of personal engagement in a piece, to the point where the article is taking a neutral stance to the detriment of the experts and researchers making the assertions. I don't know about you, but I, and most non-reporting uses I've seen, use "according to" as a means of saying "well, this really might not be true, but this one guy is saying it, totally." A reporter who is more engaged in the story, if he personally interviewed the subject, could say "So-and-so told me", and if it was second-hand, "So-and-so has found," which is much more engaging, active, and doesn't carry the self-distancing aspect of "according to."
Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not all criticism being equal (Score:4, Insightful)
it's the complete lack of personal engagement in a piece,
Its also a complete lack of judgment, to the point of appearing moronic, especially when giving equal coverage to all parties.
"According the geology professor Ms Blah, the earth might be round, although more study grants are necessary. However, Mr. SoAndSo, the president of the flat earth society, disagrees."
Second only to my favorite, trying to "middle school drama up" something professional or irrelevant.
Sure, you're laughing now... (Score:3, Insightful)
and so am I, it's a funny article and an easy target. But when the science being reported on turns out to be dodgy (sugar causes diabetes, salt causes high blood pressure, high fructose corn syrup causes etc), the write-by-numbers approach with its rote opposing opinions and seemingly spineless journalistic waffling can remind readers not to get too caught up in the latest theory du jour.
Sure, I love the exuberant decisiveness and manic clarity of the Weekly World News (who doesn't?) but all in all I think major us newspapers do a pretty good job in presenting this admittedly complicated and theoretical stuff, particularly when read with a bit of skepticism.
- js.
Only one important thing missing (Score:3, Insightful)
They forgot to add that treatments/products/services using this fantastic discovery should be commercially available within 5 years.
Re:HEY EURAKARTE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idle - NOT news (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always nice to point out mainstream journalism's failings,
Yes.
but it's really only useful if it has a message attached.
No.
Some suggestion on how to fix the system, other wise it's simply mockery.
Mockery is useful. Bare naked ridicule of the status quo can be useful. Bonus if it's funny, as TFA is.
The problem with adding how to fix the system is that you could be dead wrong. Or shortsided. Or partisan, or dumb. Just clearly pointing out what the problem is is extremely important.
This guy isn't saying he has the answer. I respect that. He's helping shape the debate. I respect that too.
Re:Idle - NOT news (Score:3, Insightful)
What is more, by describing the pattern of a formulaic article he is encouraging writers to experiment and not give us hack work. It also encourages readers to criticize such poor quality when they come across it.
Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score:3, Insightful)
You read the title ? I just look at the number of comments.
Anything over 800 automatically means a really derogatory Apple or Microsoft story.
Anything under 50 is most probably actual news for nerds and stuff that really matters.
Re:This Is a Comment Expressing New Found Skeptici (Score:4, Insightful)
(Also, the lameness filter can bite me. C'mon. How many lowercase letters do you need?)