Live data from Hacker News

Why does science news suck so much?

backreaction.blogspot.com

41–50 of 285 posts

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#41

It's not that science (or tech) news is bad, it's that all news is that bad. We just don't notice it outside our area of expertise. The next time you're reading an article about some field you're not an expert in, try to remember that it is just as bad as the news in your area of expertise.

Good investigative journalism is usually quite the opposite. Some of my favorite pieces have times, dates, who, what, where etc and are firmly rooted in data.

There’s also a new sub-field that explores topics through data and they’re usually quite excellent.

Such pieces often turn into books or a series because it’s difficult to condense it all into one article. My favorite example is the article series about illegal plutonium experiments by the US Government on civilians where they injected poor (and mostly minority) people and dying children with plutonium just to see what would happen.

The articles forced disclosure from the US Govt. in the form of an executive order and led to the book, The Plutonium Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files

> The government covered up most of these radiation mishaps until 1993, when President Bill Clinton ordered a change of policy and federal agencies then made available records dealing with human radiation experiments, as a result of Welsome's work. The resulting investigation was undertaken by the president’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, and it uncovered much of the material included in Welsome's book. The committee issued a controversial 1995 report which said that "wrongs were committed" but it did not condemn those who perpetrated them.[3] The final report came out on October 3, 1995, the same day as the verdict in the O.J. Simpson case, when much of the media's attention was directed elsewhere.

You should be able to read it here, https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/86870...

Another great example is the assassination of the head of Iran’s nuclear program by the NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuc...

It’s a beautiful example of great journalism.

If you notice both pieces took a lot of time to compile and were about events that had happened in the past. It’s much more difficult to do this with breaking news, which is where the “all news is bad” perception comes from.

News can be great. Given enough time and research.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#42
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's that all news is that bad. I don't think so. Weather news are alright, traffic news are alright, etc. There are fields that suck harder and there are fields that just work okay, maybe because they are simple enough, maybe because you can learn them once and apply what you have learned forever. But science is different for sure and the journalism on it sucks because getting to the point where you even understan…

Weather news is ok if you are outside the weather industry - but to those in the industry the forecasts are simplistic and biased, and the news doesn’t generally cover developments in forecasting technology or technique. The broader topic of climate in popular news is known to be a total shit show however (not just science, also policy etc). For what it’s worth, I work in Supply Chain and articles around that in the…

Which ones were the best, in your opinion?

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#43
this is largely a reaction to the old stereotypical attitude towards science: i.e. nerdy and uncool and for boring people. news sources - in some ways admirably - have tried to make it more interesting for the general public. they've achieved this, but at a pretty high cost, which are the points laid out in this article.

considering the size of the scientific community (i.e. people who could tell you what a confidence interval is) vs the size of the general news-reading population, I'd suggest that the likely alternative to a lot of the science reporting referred to in the article is not better science reporting, but less of it overall. sadly, these companies are simply meeting a demand from a relatively uneducated population a large proportion of whom's brains will switch off at the sight of the words "confidence interval"

my suggested solution to this is more public investment in the news industry. more grants for independent journalism

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#45

A friend of mine worked for a mainstream European science news website. Most journalists had no science background, and were pressured into writing 4 articles a day. The result of course, was low quality articles and hastily copied press releases with no critical thinking. They believed everything corporations said, because they had no time to check. I don't blame the journalists, but the work conditions and economic…

the news industry needs public investment from all angles. right now the incentives are completely wrong

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#46
post #15

It's not that science (or tech) news is bad, it's that all news is that bad. We just don't notice it outside our area of expertise. The next time you're reading an article about some field you're not an expert in, try to remember that it is just as bad as the news in your area of expertise.

> it's that all news is that bad. I don't think so. Weather news are alright, traffic news are alright, etc. There are fields that suck harder and there are fields that just work okay, maybe because they are simple enough, maybe because you can learn them once and apply what you have learned forever. But science is different for sure and the journalism on it sucks because getting to the point where you even understan…

Until weather reporting became mostly automated, most news agencies had a policy of never reporting a chance of rain as being less than 20%. If it was 8%, it was always rounded up to 20%. If you remember seeing "20% of rain" excessively most of your life, this is why. Some of them still do this, especially with on the air reports by a human.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#47
The irony here is that Sabine Hossenfelder falls into exactly the same patterns as the science media that she is criticizing. A punchy headline, with significant oversimplifications. For example, she makes it sound like science news is always aimed at scientists, and that they do not explain the science (I have several excellent counter examples). That doesn't mean there is not some very good points in there (e.g. put your dates at the top, cite your sources...)

As a side note, I hate how her channel has become something which exemplifies much of what I dislike about the now typical youtube channels: Top ten lists, grossly overstated titles, "give me your opinion in the comments", the awful generic CGI backgrounds ...

The other irony is that likely she does it for exactly the same reasons as why science media is often bad: economics.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#48

It's not that science (or tech) news is bad, it's that all news is that bad. We just don't notice it outside our area of expertise. The next time you're reading an article about some field you're not an expert in, try to remember that it is just as bad as the news in your area of expertise.

[deleted]

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#49
The article is simply glossing over the fact that a lot of "science news" is lies to make it sound like someone just invented the warp drive to sell stories. It's because the education system around us is so bad that if they mentioned half of these things (or heaven forbid basic stats) on the news people would either switch off or decry you as a modern day witch...

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#50

The irony here is that Sabine Hossenfelder falls into exactly the same patterns as the science media that she is criticizing. A punchy headline, with significant oversimplifications. For example, she makes it sound like science news is always aimed at scientists, and that they do not explain the science (I have several excellent counter examples). That doesn't mean there is not some very good points in there (e.g. pu…

Thank you for saying it
Post reply on HN