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

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#171

Post by robonerd »

physicsguy wrote: post #124

Because science is reaaaally hard to generalise for the public, and Universities love to put out press releases. Finding someone qualified to go to for comment is not straightforward. They’re not necessarily even going to be in your country. I’m a physicist by background and even when active in academia it was hard for me to understand some papers in closely related sub fields, and that was with working experience in…

> Finding someone qualified to go to for comment is not straightforward.

Not straightforward for the university press department? What could be more straightforward? Tell the university press writers to go talk to the university researchers they're writing about. If the researchers refuse to cooperate, then don't write the press release!

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#172

Post by jelliclesfarm »

physicsguy wrote: post #124

Because science is reaaaally hard to generalise for the public, and Universities love to put out press releases. Finding someone qualified to go to for comment is not straightforward. They’re not necessarily even going to be in your country. I’m a physicist by background and even when active in academia it was hard for me to understand some papers in closely related sub fields, and that was with working experience in…

I agree..especially with your first sentence. I still read encyclopedias and DK publications meant to explain science for kids. I learnt a lot of science concepts from encyclopedias as a child.

I find that today children’s education of scientific concepts is cartoonised and made into ‘fun’. These kids grow up to write about science as entertainment.

Any form of education should be challenging. Not fun. I am very taken aback and strongly disapprove of the American tendency to inject ‘fun’ into everything.

Example: learning Math should bring joy..not fun. If learning science and math is about ‘fun’, when the next fun thing comes along..learning would be abandoned.

I also believe that learning should keep one hungry and wanting more. In that.. it has to be a goal that is always a tad difficult to reach. America fails badly here. I can’t speak for other countries.

India and Europe where I have spent time do a better job in this regard, but my opinion about these places are dated.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#174

Post by wutbrodo »

snarf21 wrote: post #84
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…

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…

> NPR/PBS tends to have better and more balanced news but it is largely because of their donor/patron model.

This is an interesting hypothesis, because PBS is near the top of my quality ranking for news orgs while NPR is near the bottom (obviously excluding the long-tail of sources I don't often encounter, like breitbart). I don't see much of a correlation with manner of funding.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#175

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #154
tensor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an arrogant and toxic saying. Let's not repeat it let alone add to it please.

But is it true or not? That’s what matters right?

It's obviously not true. Teaching is a distinct skill (it's probably a large basket of distinct skills). People having varying aptitudes for it. Common sense tells you that the cliche can't possibly be true. George Bernard Shaw put those words deliberately into the mouth of a character you in particular would find absolutely insufferable.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#177

Post by physicsguy »

robonerd wrote: post #171
physicsguy wrote: post #124

Because science is reaaaally hard to generalise for the public, and Universities love to put out press releases. Finding someone qualified to go to for comment is not straightforward. They’re not necessarily even going to be in your country. I’m a physicist by background and even when active in academia it was hard for me to understand some papers in closely related sub fields, and that was with working experience in…

> Finding someone qualified to go to for comment is not straightforward. Not straightforward for the university press department? What could be more straightforward? Tell the university press writers to go talk to the university researchers they're writing about. If the researchers refuse to cooperate, then don't write the press release!

No, as in - even if you don’t want to take the scientist’s word for it, finding someone who is able to make an informed comment about whether the work is actually any good or not is really hard.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#179

Post by quest88 »

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..)

IMO: People that write well are not jumping at the chance to write science articles for universities. Writing is hard and science is hard, and being passionate about both is rare.

Re: Why does science news suck so much?

#180

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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.

It's the difference between the government justifying the funding and politicians (who control the budget) justifying funding. The government could easily justify funding as its own in-house journalism team that processes raw scientific publications into information usable by various government agencies. Politicians, instead, pander to voters with their cost/benefit metrics.
Post reply on HN