6 ms·

This is somewhat OT, but I've noticed a trend -- although I can't say how recent -- of headlines of the form "British [X] do [Amazing Thing]", particularly (but

This is somewhat OT, but I've noticed a trend -- although I can't say how recent -- of headlines of the form "British [X] do [Amazing Thing]", particularly (but not necessarily) from the BBC. I note that the HN headline has been changed to "UK researchers" (IIRC, it said "British Scientists" earlier) and this BBC article doesn't actually use this phrase in their headline, but it appears prominently in the tagline. This may be because I'm restricted to English language articles, but I don't see, for example, "Spanish researchers do [Amazing Thing]". Even in English, I don't regularly see "US/Australian/NZ/Canadian/South African/etc. [X] do [Amazing Thing]"; even though I'm sure plenty of amazing things have been done by these folks. I understand that the popular press is directed towards the masses, but is the nationality/allegiance of [X] really so important? More so than their discovery/invention/whatever? I'm British and, in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems, I'm not sure this rhetoric is helpful. Just be proud of the achievement. How about just: "[Amazing Thing]"? Or, if you want to associate it with people, to make it more personal and less "stark" (perhaps to sell it better): "Humanity achieves [Amazing Thing]".

martinald 10y ago
Is this a different headline on BBC.com? On BBC.co.uk the headline is what you say, [amazing thing?]
- louhike 10y ago
  Yes, it is [amazing thing?] on bbc.com. But the point might be that the HN title should the same than the BBC one.
olalonde 10y ago
I'm not seeing "British" anywhere in the article though it does say "UK-based team". I agree that highlighting the nationalities or country of residence of researchers is distracting at best and that your comment is OT for HN.
fooballs99 10y ago
> in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems (I realize this forum will be almost overwhelmingly in favor of the above statement, but thought I would respond anyway to give an alternative viewpoint from outside). What problems? Is it really causing problems, or is it just that you are politically opposed to it? The lack of nationalism I would say has caused far more problems over the last few decades (Mass clashing of cultures, rise of terrorism, global multi-nationals exploiting workers, not paying taxes etc, moving democracy and accountability further and further away from people). If a family member achieved something you would naturally feel more "proud" than if it was a person in the world picked at random. For some people, their nationality is important to them - an extended family of shared identity, culture, experiences and values. I would much much rather use a local taxi company, which will benefit my local community, friends, family, than use some faceless global thing like Uber, which will benefit some rich people in another country. Further, competition is good. It's the way we achieve things. If a team of scientists in [other_country] see this news, they will likely be spurred on. This is why things like the space race worked so well.
- chillydawg 10y ago
  Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".
  - fooballs99 10y ago
    > Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control". So you're just politically opposed to it. It's not a disaster if you're very much opposed to an EU superstate.
    - ppod 10y ago
      This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.
sjclemmy 10y ago
It's an item on BBC radio news today. And as I half listen to the radio the impression it gives is of the Brits making a breakthrough. Maybe Manchester Uni's marketing dept talk to the Beeb and got it on there. Who knows? As I heard it I thought, this is an odd story. Firstly for the nationalist rhetoric, and secondly for the way it's phrased. It gives the impression of a sieve, much like a kitchen sieve, that can be used to instantly turn sea water into drinking water. Which is nowhere near the truth as far as I can tell.
iagovar 10y ago
It also exists in spanish press.
- amq 10y ago
  It's not about "press" in general, but about "quality press" which BBC aims or claims to be.
Wintamute 10y ago
Careful, your politics are showing. You're advocating a sort of leftist, post-national, globalised, post-structuralist agenda. Everyone is allowed a political opinion but it comes across as slightly disingenuous to couch it in factual / self evident terminology. > populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion. People on the other side of the fence think the opposite. From whence do you derive this claim to objective truth? Most of your point seems to be built on that statement, but its subjective nature makes it fall apart.
- Xophmeister 10y ago
  >> populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems > That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion. I concede to this point. You are right: this perspective is completely subjective, when I was trying to make the objective point that science/progress doesn't care about nationality, etc. My argument's motivation was to highlight that the popular [British?] press not only dismisses this, but seemingly goes out of their way to push things in the other direction. Whether that's bad or not is very much ones opinion, but it is nonetheless objectively irrelevant modulo the scientific result and arguably "bad" in the sense that it is biased. It begs the question as to what is their (or their master's) end? I didn't put it well. Thank you for pointing it out.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
From a completely practical standpoint, we gotta have adjectives, otherwise every science story will be "People do stuff!" Fair enough to pick at which adjectives are used. I certainly find the nationality of the researchers more interesting than many other aspects, such as their hair color. Different nations have different cultures and policies towards things. Using nationality as an adjective might lead to productive conversations around how to make the species better. If so, that's a win. If all it does is promote mindless nationalism, it's a loss. So far, I'm not seeing anything to worry about -- and this title is much better than "Several Short, Brown-Haired People just did some Amazing Things with Beakers!" :) ADD: It seems like my joking title should end with "And you won't believe #7!" Thanks for your comment. This kinda thing can certainly get out of hand. So far we are very far away from that happening.
lallysingh 10y ago
I think it's really the old 5-Ws training for journalists. Who, what, where, when, why. Then take the two biggest ones (in this case, who, what, where) and put them in the headline.
triplesec 10y ago
I think your observation comes off sample bias. BBC articles come up on hacker news more than those from other national broadcasters mostly because he's in English and has regular reasonable articles on technology.
Accacin 10y ago
A quick search found this from 2013 so it's maybe just something they (the BBC) do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442095 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442095
emj 10y ago
I regularly see "Swedish X does Amazing thing" here on HN.

martinald 10y ago

Is this a different headline on BBC.com? On BBC.co.uk the headline is what you say, [amazing thing?]

louhike 10y ago
Yes, it is [amazing thing?] on bbc.com. But the point might be that the HN title should the same than the BBC one.

olalonde 10y ago

I'm not seeing "British" anywhere in the article though it does say "UK-based team". I agree that highlighting the nationalities or country of residence of researchers is distracting at best and that your comment is OT for HN.

fooballs99 10y ago

> in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems (I realize this forum will be almost overwhelmingly in favor of the above statement, but thought I would respond anyway to give an alternative viewpoint from outside). What problems? Is it really causing problems, or is it just that you are politically opposed to it? The lack of nationalism I would say has caused far more problems over the last few decades (Mass clashing of cultures, rise of terrorism, global multi-nationals exploiting workers, not paying taxes etc, moving democracy and accountability further and further away from people). If a family member achieved something you would naturally feel more "proud" than if it was a person in the world picked at random. For some people, their nationality is important to them - an extended family of shared identity, culture, experiences and values. I would much much rather use a local taxi company, which will benefit my local community, friends, family, than use some faceless global thing like Uber, which will benefit some rich people in another country. Further, competition is good. It's the way we achieve things. If a team of scientists in [other_country] see this news, they will likely be spurred on. This is why things like the space race worked so well.

chillydawg 10y ago
Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".
- fooballs99 10y ago
  > Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control". So you're just politically opposed to it. It's not a disaster if you're very much opposed to an EU superstate.
  - ppod 10y ago
    This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.

sjclemmy 10y ago

It's an item on BBC radio news today. And as I half listen to the radio the impression it gives is of the Brits making a breakthrough. Maybe Manchester Uni's marketing dept talk to the Beeb and got it on there. Who knows? As I heard it I thought, this is an odd story. Firstly for the nationalist rhetoric, and secondly for the way it's phrased. It gives the impression of a sieve, much like a kitchen sieve, that can be used to instantly turn sea water into drinking water. Which is nowhere near the truth as far as I can tell.

iagovar 10y ago

It also exists in spanish press.

amq 10y ago
It's not about "press" in general, but about "quality press" which BBC aims or claims to be.

Wintamute 10y ago

Careful, your politics are showing. You're advocating a sort of leftist, post-national, globalised, post-structuralist agenda. Everyone is allowed a political opinion but it comes across as slightly disingenuous to couch it in factual / self evident terminology. > populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion. People on the other side of the fence think the opposite. From whence do you derive this claim to objective truth? Most of your point seems to be built on that statement, but its subjective nature makes it fall apart.

Xophmeister 10y ago
>> populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems > That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion. I concede to this point. You are right: this perspective is completely subjective, when I was trying to make the objective point that science/progress doesn't care about nationality, etc. My argument's motivation was to highlight that the popular [British?] press not only dismisses this, but seemingly goes out of their way to push things in the other direction. Whether that's bad or not is very much ones opinion, but it is nonetheless objectively irrelevant modulo the scientific result and arguably "bad" in the sense that it is biased. It begs the question as to what is their (or their master's) end? I didn't put it well. Thank you for pointing it out.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

From a completely practical standpoint, we gotta have adjectives, otherwise every science story will be "People do stuff!" Fair enough to pick at which adjectives are used. I certainly find the nationality of the researchers more interesting than many other aspects, such as their hair color. Different nations have different cultures and policies towards things. Using nationality as an adjective might lead to productive conversations around how to make the species better. If so, that's a win. If all it does is promote mindless nationalism, it's a loss. So far, I'm not seeing anything to worry about -- and this title is much better than "Several Short, Brown-Haired People just did some Amazing Things with Beakers!" :) ADD: It seems like my joking title should end with "And you won't believe #7!" Thanks for your comment. This kinda thing can certainly get out of hand. So far we are very far away from that happening.

lallysingh 10y ago

I think it's really the old 5-Ws training for journalists. Who, what, where, when, why. Then take the two biggest ones (in this case, who, what, where) and put them in the headline.

triplesec 10y ago

I think your observation comes off sample bias. BBC articles come up on hacker news more than those from other national broadcasters mostly because he's in English and has regular reasonable articles on technology.

Accacin 10y ago

A quick search found this from 2013 so it's maybe just something they (the BBC) do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442095 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442095

emj 10y ago

I regularly see "Swedish X does Amazing thing" here on HN.