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

Why does science news suck so much?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 285 posts

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#61

Post by diognesofsinope »

cycomanic wrote: post #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. pu…

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

Can we all stop blaming 'economics'. Economics says people are largely self-interested, selfish and maximize their own utility (happiness-whatever).

It's not 'economics', it's people. Labor unions are also maximizing their revenue.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#62

Post by marginalia_nu »

refurb wrote: post #58
permo-w wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean we have public broadcasters like Canada’s CBC and they still do the same thing. Why? Because they need to justify their budget. If nobody reads/views your reports, why should the government pay for it. The real answer is: the public doesn’t want science reporting unless it’s punchy, simple and exciting.

Sometimes it's not about what the public wants, but what it needs.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#63

Post by refurb »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #62
refurb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean we have public broadcasters like Canada’s CBC and they still do the same thing. Why? Because they need to justify their budget. If nobody reads/views your reports, why should the government pay for it. The real answer is: the public doesn’t want science reporting unless it’s punchy, simple and exciting.

Sometimes it's not about what the public wants, but what it needs.

Do you force the public to read it? Or just live with the fact you get dozens of views for news that took hours and thousands of dollars to create.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#64

Post by marginalia_nu »

refurb wrote: post #63
marginalia_nu wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's not about what the public wants, but what it needs.

Do you force the public to read it? Or just live with the fact you get dozens of views for news that took hours and thousands of dollars to create.

Well, if you've made dozens of people learn something, then that's surely better than filling millions of peoples heads with nothing but vapid nonsense, isn't it?

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#65

Post by refurb »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #64
refurb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you force the public to read it? Or just live with the fact you get dozens of views for news that took hours and thousands of dollars to create.

Well, if you've made dozens of people learn something, then that's surely better than filling millions of peoples heads with nothing but vapid nonsense, isn't it?

Sure it better.

But instead of making dozens of people learning something you paid for school lunches for 200 students each month?

It’s a limit pot of tax payer money and it needs to be used on the highest impact things.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#66

Post by jahnu »

cycomanic wrote: post #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. pu…

I feel differently about her work. I think she is doing the less popular and therefore less lucrative work of summarising what is just not correct out there. She spends time deflating amazing claims. The medium of YouTube is not conducive to lengthy expositions and is definitely not academic grade but it shouldn’t be! She is making pithy responses to headline grabbing sensational mainstream hype reporting. There is an audience for that and she caters to it. You don’t like her aesthetic, fine. That’s a valid opinion but it doesn’t invalidate her work or make her the equivalent of what she is criticising. Headlines are to grab attention and sorry but that’s a fact for YouTube, trade books and even peer reviewed papers. The content is what ultimately should be judged and her content is high quality for what it aims to be. Want academic level peer reviewed literature? Go read a paper, text book or take a course.

We need more Sabines not fewer.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#67

Post by tomrod »

diognesofsinope wrote: post #61
cycomanic wrote: post #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. pu…

> The other irony is that likely she does it for exactly the same reasons as why science media is often bad: economics. Can we all stop blaming 'economics'. Economics says people are largely self-interested, selfish and maximize their own utility (happiness-whatever). It's not 'economics', it's people. Labor unions are also maximizing their revenue.

Yes, the processes of incentives driving outcomes is economics.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#68

Post by marginalia_nu »

refurb wrote: post #65
marginalia_nu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you've made dozens of people learn something, then that's surely better than filling millions of peoples heads with nothing but vapid nonsense, isn't it?

Sure it better. But instead of making dozens of people learning something you paid for school lunches for 200 students each month? It’s a limit pot of tax payer money and it needs to be used on the highest impact things.

How can you tell what has impact, though? What's the point in paying for school lunches for kids who have no interest in learning?

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#69

Post by bsenftner »

arnaudsm wrote: post #38

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 behavior we see due to the private ownership of media and news publishers betrays the colossal failure it is for the public and nations at large to have our society's self-reporting undermined by profit motives. News and media need to be treated as protected speech, with more formalization and more regulation. Leaving the governance of our society's self reporting to greedy Capitalists is a clear and active recipe for doublespeak and fascism.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#70

Post by refurb »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #68
refurb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it better. But instead of making dozens of people learning something you paid for school lunches for 200 students each month? It’s a limit pot of tax payer money and it needs to be used on the highest impact things.

How can you tell what has impact, though? What's the point in paying for school lunches for kids who have no interest in learning?

The impact is they aren’t malnourished? Seems like a good goal.

Edit: we prioritize feeding people over giving them educational science articles; seems appropriate

Post reply on HN