3 ms·
Those are both good but the key here is the media needs to understand that scientific papers that have not been independently verified are in a "maybe" state.
by ebbv 10y ago
Those are both good but the key here is the media needs to understand that scientific papers that have not been independently verified are in a "maybe" state.
Of course, they probably do know this and just choose to ignore it because "Unverified Study that MIGHT Point to M&M's Being Good For You" won't get as many clicks as "M&M's Are Good For You Says New Study!"
- csydas 10y agoThis is sort of why I think having it stated explicitly within the paper, not just an aside but part of the actual process. It's to pit less scrupulous journalists against one another, in an "honor among thieves" sort of way I guess. If someone wants to go ahead and write clickbait, they can, but it leaves them open to someone else looking to discredit them going "well, did you even read the paper? they told you not to write that." it's not so much checking for the public purpose, it's for others.