Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study • Hacker News Board

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#91

Post by eggy » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

mynewtb wrote: post #87

lostlogin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but adverts then had a limited ability to make your life worse. Take something I found annoying then (full page magazine advert) and compare that to a full page auto play advert that sometimes even has extra adverts that are flashing down the sides. It is so hostile that I don't go to those places even with a blocker turned on because anyone who values their content that little doesn't have anything I want to see…

Not to mention targetted ads that try to exploit your psychological traits.

Ads have always been targeted; they're just more precise now, and fancier. Same tactics.

Think of the old 'sand-in-the-face' bodybuilding ads that were in comic books. Most comic book readers were young males going through puberty, myself included.

Disclosure: I went for the drawing school test ads, and solar ovens in 1976 ;)

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#92

Post by superuser2 » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

yk wrote: post #84

superuser2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers used to have a robust QA mechanism: the profession of copy editing. Wasn't perfect, but they knew generally what they were doing. (My dad used to be one). Guess who goes first in the layoffs. Any discussion of the state of modern journalism has to acknowledge that newspapers are hemorrhaging cash and lashing out with desperate, short-term plays to try to keep breathing until next quarter. In your software…

I think it is more complicated than that, newspapers have the problem that they are hemorrhaging cash, but also that the format of a newspaper article is not well suited to convey information. It is just long enough to give the impression of information, but too short to actually establish an argument. And third, especially on QA, the best newspapers get beaten by the best blogs, it is just something fundamentally di…

This might be true for highly technical topics but that is not close to most reporting.

Most of the real meat of reporting is on politics, institutions and how they are functioning (or dysfunctional), sociological trends, crime, analysis/commentary on those kinds of topics, and the occasional heartwarming fluff about some quirky local person or organization. We have yet to see professional, disinterested 3rd parties doing serious full-time work on this kind of stuff except when employed as journalists.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#93

Post by robotresearcher » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #22

robotresearcher wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from? What a weird selection criterion. It rejects all the professional scientists, by your description.

It doesn't if the scientist's income isn't directly tied to their writing, or the opinions they reach . I would exclude, on that basis, a research scientist for an organisation, particularly a conflicts or regulatory-opposing organisation (advocacy, litigation). A teaching position that doesn't require publication , and a fair number of governmental organisations, might qualify. The latter depending much on the insti…

Well, almost all research doctors, engineers and scientists are rewarded indirectly for publishing research. It's a part of the job description. We aren't paid directly for papers but may be for books. But if we don't publish, no one can benefit from the work so it would be wasted.

Downvalue professionally published work if you wish, but you'd be ignoring many of the most important papers in history.

For what it's worth I have never felt the slightest pressure from editorial boards about the content of my papers, apart from issues of methodology and clarity that usually improve the final paper. My work has little political impact though. Other's experience may vary.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#94

Post by adrianratnapala » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 4:12 AM UTC

robotresearcher wrote: post #18

elgabogringo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I thought about this a bit more and, to be honest, I read very few academics. Not intentionally, but it worked out that way. Strangely, some of the smarter, best informed people I read are just regular people without any journalistic or academic qualifications in the field they write on. On second thought, maybe that's not as strange as it seems.

It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK. Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine arti…

This is only three quaters true. The rules of any funding commmitee will include public outreach, and getting yourself published in the popular really will help you get your next grant.

But all that often has an artificial feel to it, and day to day the job of scientists is to explain things too, and compete with, one another.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#95

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 5:20 AM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #94

robotresearcher wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK. Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine arti…

This is only three quaters true. The rules of any funding commmitee will include public outreach, and getting yourself published in the popular really will help you get your next grant. But all that often has an artificial feel to it, and day to day the job of scientists is to explain things too, and compete with, one another.

[deleted]

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#96

Post by robotresearcher » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 5:30 AM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #94

robotresearcher wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to understand that practicing researchers are targeting each other as the audience, and not laypeople. It's simply not the scientist's job to inform or entertain you when they work in that mode. Some choose to do popular writing as well - Carl Sagan is a very successful example. But not all, and that's OK. Most excellent scientists are busy doing useful things other than popular blogs and magazine arti…

This is only three quaters true. The rules of any funding commmitee will include public outreach, and getting yourself published in the popular really will help you get your next grant. But all that often has an artificial feel to it, and day to day the job of scientists is to explain things too, and compete with, one another.

> This is only three quaters true.

I said 'when they work in that mode'.