5 ms·
Yeah, I don't like it at all either. But I attribute that to the fact that I've read so many stories in that style popping up on HN, NYT, WSJ or Economist. Ther
by throwawaymath 8y ago
Yeah, I don't like it at all either. But I attribute that to the fact that I've read so many stories in that style popping up on HN, NYT, WSJ or Economist. There's probably nothing wrong with that style in itself and it does add a bit of flourish to what might otherwise be a very short article. But it does become grating if you're exposed to articles like it so often that it seems like a rote pattern.
Sometimes when I read reporting like this it makes me think that human language isn't so complex as to be intractable. For all our mastery of the subtleties and nuances of human communication, it appears that (for the most part), our most widely disseminated writing is formulaic and templated. It strikes me that this sort of writing is like the four chords that virtually all popular music is written in.
When you start to see it so often there almost seems to be something sing-songey about this kind of writing. It's not just the narrative structure, use of in media res, or focus on characters instead of facts - it's also the words themselves, which seem to be used to construct a finite number of idioms and phrases arranged in a very usual pattern.
I suppose every sophisticated thing in the world is mundane when you're watched it long enough to see a pattern. TVTropes gives me the same feeling about entertainment. I'm also of the opinion that this style of writing is mostly disagreeable for people who just want the technical content. But to be frank, there are very good periodicals for Quanta Magazine for that kind of purpose. Popular journalism isn't really intended for that.
- Eequei3i 8y ago> add a bit of flourish to what might otherwise be a very short article Brevity would save time and be easier on everyone's scarce attention.
- throwawaymath 8y agoI agree, but that's not what everyone wants. I don't think they necessarily should want it, either. If writing in this style gets more people to read then so much the better - the complaints about it in this thread are, if we're going to be fully self-aware about it, a very tiny and unrepresentative microcosm compared to the total readership in play. We're not all running around as hyperrational machine gods :). What matters to some people doesn't matter to others, and it's probably very hard to optimize widely disseminated content for accessibility, enjoyability and depth of technical coverage. I might go so far as to say you need to pick two.
- Retric 8y agoThe problem every news source uses this format. Remove the fluff and you might get a single page of 'major' science news per month. Sure it would be a little dry but it would also be something I would want to read.
- isoprophlex 8y agoExactly, I find myself (unconsciously) skimming the first sentences of each paragraph of these long articles until the actual content starts. It feels like having to sit through the first 5 secs of a YT ad before you can skip it. All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose?
- mikec3010 8y ago> All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose I don't suppose that. I'd say it's because writing has more levels to it than a Wikipedia style information dump. Just like software has more elements than just spelling out the desired behavior.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mikec3010 8y agoNot everyone's attention is scarce. I think it's a symptom of the digital age. Too much consumption on computers with constant interruptions and instant gratification.
- jessriedel 8y agoFor people who feel like they should be reading about more science but find straight-science bland, I don't begrudge them having access to journalism that makes it easier for them to consume. My chief concern is that this style of writing is overwhelmingly dominant in all major outlets. You can find some niche science-heavy writing, but they are so unpopular that they don't have any of the resources of the major newspapers. > ...so many stories in that style popping up on HN, NYT, WSJ or Economist Incidentally, this has not been my experience with the Economist. I find their science reporting to be the highest quality (both in correctness and in directness) of any of the major outlets. They are the only ones that have written about my field several times and always gotten it basically right.
- throwawaymath 8y agoI didn’t mean to say the Economist’s reporting isn’t high quality. It’s probably my favorite news publication. The writing is definitely more brief and focused than that of the WSJ and NYT. But it still has elements of this in play. Consider, for example, the first paragraph of You break it, you own it from the most recent issue’s Middle East and Africa section: THE scene in the centre of Afrin, a Kurdish city in north-western Syria, hardly inspires confidence in the future. A destroyed statue of a mythical Kurdish hero is a reminder of the plunder of the city after its capture earlier this year by Arab and Turkoman rebels backed by Turkish tanks, from Kurdish rebels. The teenage son of one of the Arab rebels peddles cigarettes, a rifle across his knees. Another rebel directs traffic. Turkey argues it saved Afrin from terrorists and boasts of opening schools and hospitals. Residents are not exactly brimming with gratitude. “The Turkish soldiers are behaving decently,” says a Kurdish merchant. “But the bearded ones are big trouble,” he adds, referring to Islamist militants. “They’ve stolen so much.” I don’t believe it’s bad writing at all. In fact it’s rather nice. But it’s in the same category as what we’re talking about. The key is that this isn’t a science or technology story, so this kind of setting-the-scene and world-building don’t detract from the technical content.
- jessriedel 8y agoYea, my comment was only about the Economist's science coverage.