5 ms·
> Surprisingly, sci-news.com has a better writeup on this than NPR Are sci-news's usual writeups bad ? Why is it surprising ? Other from sci-news seemed fine t
by mataug 10y ago
> Surprisingly, sci-news.com has a better writeup on this than NPR
Are sci-news's usual writeups bad ? Why is it surprising ?
Other from sci-news seemed fine to me .
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jobu 10y agoPoor choice of words maybe. Mostly I was surprised by the lower than expected quality of article on NPR. The title is clickbaity, and they definitely missed key bits of information.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoIt's more that NPR's write-ups are usually quite good.
- spikels 10y agoSeems like whenever NPR reports on subjects I happen to know really really well I find myself disappointed. Makes me wonder about the rest of their reporting.
- succstressful 10y agoThis generally goes for all media entities. Similar scrutiny should be applied to all subjects, not just those for which we're experts. It's a common fallacy to take news of unfamiliar subjects at face value, while understanding that there is far more to the stories we know well than that which is contained in one piece of media.
- paavokoya 10y agoNPR is almost as bad as CNN and such, but it's marketed towards intellectuals through linguistics. I noticed whenever they speak on a topic I'm deeply familiar with, they use overly-complicated wordage to get the point across while missing important details. Almost like how "over-designed" websites usually have terrible backends.
- triplesec 10y agoStill beats most radio media or TV 'news' for attempting to be accurate!
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago"Not quite up to the standards of a topic expert" is still a damn sight better than most science reporting.