Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Why Bad Science Persists in Newspapers
| User | Post |
Thayer
Posts: 517/988 |
Originally posted by Kefka
I don't really feel that this is how it should be either. I just merely said that this is how it is. If you can manage to change the entire media, I am impressed. Please do so.
You give up too easily. There are already some reporters who do try to get their facts straight some of the time. Effectively, what would really be required is that a large percentage of science reporters would actually need to get beyond the brief cover story, stop bullshitting to make a story bigger than it is, and just report it like it is.  |
Kefka
Posts: 3366/3392 |
I don't really feel that this is how it should be either. I just merely said that this is how it is. If you can manage to change the entire media, I am impressed. Please do so. |
Thayer
Posts: 511/988 |
Originally posted by Kefka
I'm going to guess that this is the same way for the issue you mentioned. The 95%+ know they're right, and don't need to say anything. Those that think they are right but aren't have to make a big deal out of it just to have a chance at persuading others.
Oh believe me, that 99% is very vocal in response that they are right, it's just that the media only pays attention to the 1%. It's a deliberate perptuation of bad science for the sheer novelty of drama between dueling factions, even if one faction is only armed with an empty watergun.
So yea, that's how it goes, folks. Welcome to the world of science in the news. Get fucking used to it quick.
I don't feel this is how it should be. I've found over the past six years I'm continually having to respond to and address retarded questions that people have merely because they were misled by science articles in the newspaper and on news sites. And this is just for things related to paleontology, imagine how it must be for individuals who are interested in far far more important fields.  |
Kefka
Posts: 3362/3392 |
Ok, firstly, you didn't need to quote my post to say that. I didn't see anything at all related to what I said, so my words didn't need to be reiterated.
If you noticed, most scientists support the global warming theory as well. Not just most. Like, 99% of them. Yet, the guys that get into the news now are those who oppose it. Why? Because they are the most vocal, and they need to be since they are only representing 1% of scientists who deal with global warming at all. I'm going to guess that this is the same way for the issue you mentioned. The 95%+ know they're right, and don't need to say anything. Those that think they are right but aren't have to make a big deal out of it just to have a chance at persuading others.
So yea, that's how it goes, folks. Welcome to the world of science in the news. Get fucking used to it quick. |
Thayer
Posts: 507/988 |
Originally posted by Kefka
Seriously, ever since media existed, they have distorted things. And yet, you NEED to have it. It's like a drug. It's honestly comparable to the soma that is in Brave New World. The media will do things like misquote, misrepresent data, interpret data in a skewed way just so it supports a claim, distort information.... it's been happening FOREVER. Get used to it. And yes, about bad science... frontier science always makes it in the news first because the "discoveries" they make always sound SO DAMNED COOL!!!! Anything else that needs to be explained?
I lol at the way they make the origin of birds seem like it's a really hotly debated item between paleontologists. Reality: The predominant number of paleontologists and ornithologist who give a fuck (i.e. actually work in that field of research) believe that birds are dinosaurs. The others (which would make up around 5%) think that they came from something else, but can't agree as to what it came from and every time they publish an article explaining their best and newest argument as to why it must be wrong, they continue to publish horridly inaccurate and often wildly outdated materials. And yet the press eats it up like it's 100% true. gjCNN. |
Kefka
Posts: 3359/3392 |
Whoa....
Media, MISLEADING?!?!?!? When did you make this startling discovery, Watson?
Seriously, ever since media existed, they have distorted things. And yet, you NEED to have it. It's like a drug. It's honestly comparable to the soma that is in Brave New World. The media will do things like misquote, misrepresent data, interpret data in a skewed way just so it supports a claim, distort information.... it's been happening FOREVER. Get used to it. And yes, about bad science... frontier science always makes it in the news first because the "discoveries" they make always sound SO DAMNED COOL!!!! Anything else that needs to be explained? |
Thayer
Posts: 453/988 |
Ah I see. Well, most of the time, it feels that the news media can be misleading, but I think it'd be wrong to ignore it entirely. I do feel though that the news media however is most often inadequate to get an accurate view of science-related news. |
Zer0wned
Posts: 110/181 |
Originally posted by Thayer
Originally posted by Zer0wned
This kinda reminds me of when I see bar graphs, where they fail to point out that the chart has been cropped. So that something that's 4% higher looks more like 20%.
Media isn't about spread of information, propaganda, ratings, blah blah blah.
Would you mind explaining your second paragraph further? It made little sense, I'm afraid.
Bah, details... That was pretty much an {insert rant about media corruption here} kind of thing. I motioned an insert because those rants are usually half bullshit anyway, and I kinda stopped watching TV like a few months ago, didn't watch much before then either. So I'm far from a ranting authority on the matter.
"Media isn't about spread of information, propaganda, ratings, blah blah blah." is basically what I hear when people rant to me about it. I hope that made the purpose of the second paragraph a little more clear.
EDIT: stupid html... |
Thayer
Posts: 445/988 |
Originally posted by Zer0wned
This kinda reminds me of when I see bar graphs, where they fail to point out that the chart has been cropped. So that something that's 4% higher looks more like 20%.
Media isn't about spread of information, propaganda, ratings, blah blah blah.
Would you mind explaining your second paragraph further? It made little sense, I'm afraid. |
Zer0wned
Posts: 109/181 |
This kinda reminds me of when I see bar graphs, where they fail to point out that the chart has been cropped. So that something that's 4% higher looks more like 20%.
Media isn't about spread of information, propaganda, ratings, blah blah blah. |
Thayer
Posts: 431/988 |
I honestly feel after about the past six or so years in which I've been reading newspaper articles on dinosaurs that this article here (Guardian UK 'Don't Dumb Me Down') is amazingly dead on. I can't even begin to say how much I agree with it. Time and time again, I have read articles that demonstrate such an insanely wide disparity between the reporter's article and the original technical paper that the reporter was discussing. Has anyone else noticed this sort of thing? Does anyone feel this article is off? |
|
