The problem is that this sort of stuff works. Just like the YT algorithm which makes it difficult to be successful without clickbait and is the reason why the platform is so saturated with it. Unfortunately this means that the default person just sees the title and maybe doesn’t actually read the article for more info and leaves with more misconceptions.
My favorite quote by Denzel Washington quoting off Mark Twain is “If you dont watch the news you’re uninformed and if you watch the news you’re misinformed… it’s all about who gets it out first now. It’s not about the truth anymore…”
Well, sometimes it’s also scientists having trouble communicating their findings clearly. Communicating science to a general audience is an extremely difficult thing. It’s easy to complain about journalists not reading papers in enough detail, but at the same time, the reality is that even the best news will not reflect the full nuance of issues. COVID has taught scientists a lot about how to communicate more clearly.
Disclaimer: I’m a student in the sciences and am not trying to put down scientists in any way. More often than not, journalists can (and should) do better. But scientists can also do better.
Inspo from [https://imgur.com/r/funny/2DI6z](https://imgur.com/r/funny/2DI6z) 🙂
Brilliant
It’s like reading anything my ex says in court about my parenting.
r/thunderf00t
Among us without the suits
So accurate it hurts. great job!
Its even worse in cosmology and astronomy.
Its power level was over 9000?
This is soooo accurate XD
All journalism in a nutshell.
It is all about the clicks.
The problem is that this sort of stuff works. Just like the YT algorithm which makes it difficult to be successful without clickbait and is the reason why the platform is so saturated with it. Unfortunately this means that the default person just sees the title and maybe doesn’t actually read the article for more info and leaves with more misconceptions.
“It wouldn’t be so funny, if it weren’t so sad…”
This hits too close to home. Great work!
/r/futurology wants to have a word with you…
Nevermind just science journalism, it’s just about all of journalism. They have a tendency to “skip over” certain bits of info.
Does the Reporter work for the Daily Mail, by any chance? 🤔
Reminds me of Viakavish
‘mis’information is usually by mistake.
‘dis’information is typically deliberate.
My favorite quote by Denzel Washington quoting off Mark Twain is “If you dont watch the news you’re uninformed and if you watch the news you’re misinformed… it’s all about who gets it out first now. It’s not about the truth anymore…”
I hate how on point this is.
Well, sometimes it’s also scientists having trouble communicating their findings clearly. Communicating science to a general audience is an extremely difficult thing. It’s easy to complain about journalists not reading papers in enough detail, but at the same time, the reality is that even the best news will not reflect the full nuance of issues. COVID has taught scientists a lot about how to communicate more clearly.
Disclaimer: I’m a student in the sciences and am not trying to put down scientists in any way. More often than not, journalists can (and should) do better. But scientists can also do better.
Oh man. The two times we had reporters in our lab for PR for our research they totally got it wrong .. like on purpose.
In one report they even showed the wrong building where our research lab was .. we asked them ‘the other building looked cooler’
They showed the student union building .. FFS. After that I never talked to them again
the spiritual successor to Southpark
Lmfao you hit so many things with such accuracy. Loved every second of it. Great work
And that’s when they don’t try to be malicious.