Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

badscience.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#51

Post by TrevorFancher »

ilamont wrote: post #20

If you asked most reporters whether they used primary sources, they would say yes, and point to the interviews that they conduct. But if you were to point out that primary sources also includes published research, almost to a man or woman they would say A) they don't have the time to read it B) they don't have access to the journals or C) they are not aware the research exists. A few might concede D) even if they had…

> Some researchers have seized upon blogging as a great way to ... reach their peers ... I am sure the audience here knows of many ...

Will the audience with such knowledge kindly enlighten the rest of us?

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#52

Post by ilamont »

TrevorFancher wrote: post #51
ilamont wrote: post #20

If you asked most reporters whether they used primary sources, they would say yes, and point to the interviews that they conduct. But if you were to point out that primary sources also includes published research, almost to a man or woman they would say A) they don't have the time to read it B) they don't have access to the journals or C) they are not aware the research exists. A few might concede D) even if they had…

> Some researchers have seized upon blogging as a great way to ... reach their peers ... I am sure the audience here knows of many ... Will the audience with such knowledge kindly enlighten the rest of us?

Two I have visited in the past:

Economics: Baseline Scenario: http://baselinescenario.com/

Asian History: Frog in a Well: http://www.froginawell.net/

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#53

Post by zasz »

mixmax wrote: post #6

Because journalists don't read primary sources. More often than not they're not even aware of them. Here's the problem: Almost all media outlets are in crisis mode so they're cutting down on their staff, meaning that a smaller number of journalists have to write the same amount of stories as before to fill the paper (or website). There simply isn't time for proper research if you have to write five articles a day. So…

They haven't always been in a crisis mode. They've never linked to primary sources. Even if you take the print edition of a newspaper before the Internet, you'll never see instructions at the end of an story on how to obtain the full writeup of the data by the investigating scientist.

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#54

Post by naa42 »

TrevorFancher wrote: post #51
ilamont wrote: post #20

If you asked most reporters whether they used primary sources, they would say yes, and point to the interviews that they conduct. But if you were to point out that primary sources also includes published research, almost to a man or woman they would say A) they don't have the time to read it B) they don't have access to the journals or C) they are not aware the research exists. A few might concede D) even if they had…

> Some researchers have seized upon blogging as a great way to ... reach their peers ... I am sure the audience here knows of many ... Will the audience with such knowledge kindly enlighten the rest of us?

Theoretical/mathematical physics: Not Even Wrong http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

The reference frame http://motls.blogspot.com/ (not only physics, but also climate change)

Collective blog on mathematics and mathematical physics: n-Category cafe http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#55

Post by anamax »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

In theory, journalists have jobs that are about synthesis , not information. You read the story about the local town council meeting mainly because it is entertaining and engaging, not because it's a summary of the meeting notes. That's a very difficult thing for technical people to grasp. Sometimes I think we view everything online as various versions of wikipedia, and it's not like that at all. In practice, sure, t…

> Reporters and editors are supposed to be very good at taking multiple sources, including the reporters own generated research, and mashing it together into something greater than the sum of the parts.

Can you give some examples of "reporters own generated research"?

The only one that comes to mind is Arthur Carlson's "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Re: Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

#56

Post by DanielBMarkham »

anamax wrote: post #55
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

In theory, journalists have jobs that are about synthesis , not information. You read the story about the local town council meeting mainly because it is entertaining and engaging, not because it's a summary of the meeting notes. That's a very difficult thing for technical people to grasp. Sometimes I think we view everything online as various versions of wikipedia, and it's not like that at all. In practice, sure, t…

> Reporters and editors are supposed to be very good at taking multiple sources, including the reporters own generated research, and mashing it together into something greater than the sum of the parts. Can you give some examples of "reporters own generated research"? The only one that comes to mind is Arthur Carlson's "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Great line, and still memorable after many years.

An interview is research. As is looking for a good picture, or finding obscure facts in various offline sources.

Post reply on HN