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

161–170 of 285 posts

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#161

Post by Cupertino95014 »

Sabine Hossenfelder is a great source to follow (and author of books to read).

One of the absolute worst things about the pandemic was the deluge of garbage articles about COVID, like the ones she's talking about. "Someone somewhere found a correlation of X with Y!!!" gets reported as if it were Nobel-worthy.

"Did it used to be different?" No, science reporting has always been garbage. But in the before times, the mainstream news still reported garbage, but there was less of it to report, and you could easily find quality reporting if you looked for it.

Now there are many more "experts" vying for press time, and the press is able to disseminate their garbage much more effectively.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#162

Post by [deleted] »

robonerd wrote: post #160
snarf21 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. It is all about click bait to drive digital advertising. It is largely our own fault. We (by and large) don't want to pay good journalism. We want it to be free which means ads. NPR/PBS tends to have better and more balanced news but it is largely because of their donor/patron model. But to be clear, they are surely not immune. They are still run by people who are judged by views and reach and other eye…

> Exactly this. It is all about click bait to drive digital advertising. It is largely our own fault. We (by and large) don't want to pay good journalism. I'm not buying it. Science reporting from university press departments is just as bad if not worse, and they are funded by the university not advertising (tuition, grants, alumni donations, etc..)

[deleted]

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#164

Post by davrosthedalek »

feet wrote: post #116
davrosthedalek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having seen the PR disasters from CERN, I'd say we need less PR releases.

Yea because those were undoubtedly worse than your average scientific reporting from whatever Times? Honestly, come on

The problem is that they caused that reporting. No PR about superluminal neutrinos, no hysterical reporting about them. This would have given the community time to find the bad connection which caused the bad data.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#165

Post by jelliclesfarm »

bawolff wrote: post #83
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.

I would say quanta magazine is a counterexample

Also: Nautilus

https://nautil.us/

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#166

Post by robonerd »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #80
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.

Sorry, but news organizations aren't out there doing what the public wants. Most of them are doing what will get attention. That is very different. The public doesn't want to have to give them attention, but when they say things like "X cures cancer" or "X is a threat to your children" it makes people listen. When the article turns out to be nothing, a small fraction of the people you fooled turn off your channel for…

> This behavior needs to be called out and there needs to be accountability. However, there is none. Even when the stories are completely fabricated, as happened at USA Today recently.

I'd love a browser extension that shows me a crowd-sourced batting average for the author of any article I'm reading online. Something that tells me "Oh, you're reading an article written by journalist Joe Schmoe? Joe has previously written 400 breathless articles about scientists discovering space aliens"

I know I know, technical solution to a social problem. And curating these crowdsourced article tags and statistics would probably be an intractable nightmare. It probably can't hurt much to try though. I think the fundamental problem is there are too many journalists for many individual journalists to develop a reputation in the minds of readers. I read several hundred, maybe a few thousand articles a year, but I could only tell you the names of a handful of journalists at best. There must be some way for technology to help bridge this gap.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#167

Post by davrosthedalek »

cycomanic wrote: post #131
davrosthedalek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature and Science took a big hit in my personal rating because they allow/encourage the publication of reviewer names for accepted papers. I think this will corrupt the review process in the long run. In addition with their clear money making agenda and limited preprint compatibility (this might have changed), I strongly prefer Physics Review Letters.

Why I am highly critical of Nature (and to somewhat lesser degree of Science) I do believe the review process needs much more transparency. I am not yet convinced that making reviews public will make much difference to the better, however saying it will corrupt the review process is completely missing how broken the process is right now, in particular for these high-impact journals. Some copernicus journals [1] (I ha…

I don't think it's that broken in nuclear physics. sure there are bad reviewers, but it's on the editors to sort that out. But opening the door to "that reviewer reviewed us favorably, so we have to do the same" is not good.

Edit: Can only speak of nuclear physics.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#168

Post by robonerd »

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?

> What's the point in paying for school lunches for kids who have no interest in learning?

Because the state requires them to be there anyway, so it's the state's responsibility to ensure they are well fed? Academic performance has no bearing on whether somebody deserves food.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#169

Post by pixodaros »

random_upvoter wrote: post #159

All news sucks that much, it just so happens that you know enough of the subject to recognize the suckage.

Journalists can be pretty good at reporting local events and uncovering the relationships between local people ("this property developer's husband made a big loan to that town councilor before the councilor suddenly changed his vote to approve a development"). Where they almost always fail is analysis and domain knowledge. Gell-Mann amnesia describes the failures of technical reporting.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#170

Post by pclmulqdq »

robonerd wrote: post #166
pclmulqdq wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but news organizations aren't out there doing what the public wants. Most of them are doing what will get attention. That is very different. The public doesn't want to have to give them attention, but when they say things like "X cures cancer" or "X is a threat to your children" it makes people listen. When the article turns out to be nothing, a small fraction of the people you fooled turn off your channel for…

> This behavior needs to be called out and there needs to be accountability. However, there is none. Even when the stories are completely fabricated, as happened at USA Today recently. I'd love a browser extension that shows me a crowd-sourced batting average for the author of any article I'm reading online. Something that tells me "Oh, you're reading an article written by journalist Joe Schmoe? Joe has previously wr…

I've heard of newsguard and ground news. Both are biased in favor of "reputable" sources who should have been punished for fake news and haven't (USA Today, NY Times).
Post reply on HN