4 ms·

For 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

For 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Yea, my comment was only about the Economist's science coverage.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Well while I have you, it looks like your field is physics. Do you mind mentioning a few other publications which do a particularly good job of covering physics? The only other one I regularly read is Quanta Magazine, but my background is more math and CS.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      I wish I had good recommendations for you. Quanta can be quite good, but it misses sometimes. Most coverage of fundamental physics, especially theory, fails (for obvious reasons) to provide the key context that progress in the field is very slow and getting slower. There are a few excellent specialist blogs, like Resonaances for particle physics, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/ http://resonaances.blogspot.com/ but they are not very accessible to outsiders. Sean Carroll, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Peter Woit are pretty good and accessible http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/ http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ but they aren't neutral; that's fine since they are personal blogs, but it can be difficult for laymen to get an objective picture of the field.
      - throwawaymath 8y ago
        Why is progress in the field getting slower?
        jessriedel 8y ago
        Roughly, because the experiments have gotten too expensive, so new data is coming in too slowly.
rory096 8y ago
>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. What sort of resources? NASASpaceflight.com is one of the best space news sites around (along with SpaceNews.com) and it does it on subscription revenue for a private section of its forum (yes, a phpBB-style forum) and a smidge of ad revenue. Meanwhile, CNN has all the resources in the world and this is what we get: https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1022246752861282305 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10222467528612823...
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I think you're speaking to my point? The higher quality reporting is rarer and stuck with way fewer resources.
  - rory096 8y ago
    I guess my question is: what's the downside to not having those resources?
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      I predict NASASpaceflight.com and SpaceNews.com would give you a laundry list of types and depths of coverage they would provide if given only a bit more money. You don't see all the good stuff you're not getting.

throwawaymath 8y ago

I 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 ago
Yea, my comment was only about the Economist's science coverage.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Well while I have you, it looks like your field is physics. Do you mind mentioning a few other publications which do a particularly good job of covering physics? The only other one I regularly read is Quanta Magazine, but my background is more math and CS.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I wish I had good recommendations for you. Quanta can be quite good, but it misses sometimes. Most coverage of fundamental physics, especially theory, fails (for obvious reasons) to provide the key context that progress in the field is very slow and getting slower. There are a few excellent specialist blogs, like Resonaances for particle physics, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/ http://resonaances.blogspot.com/ but they are not very accessible to outsiders. Sean Carroll, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Peter Woit are pretty good and accessible http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/ http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ but they aren't neutral; that's fine since they are personal blogs, but it can be difficult for laymen to get an objective picture of the field.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      Why is progress in the field getting slower?
      - jessriedel 8y ago
        Roughly, because the experiments have gotten too expensive, so new data is coming in too slowly.

rory096 8y ago

>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. What sort of resources? NASASpaceflight.com is one of the best space news sites around (along with SpaceNews.com) and it does it on subscription revenue for a private section of its forum (yes, a phpBB-style forum) and a smidge of ad revenue. Meanwhile, CNN has all the resources in the world and this is what we get: https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1022246752861282305 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10222467528612823...

jessriedel 8y ago
I think you're speaking to my point? The higher quality reporting is rarer and stuck with way fewer resources.
- rory096 8y ago
  I guess my question is: what's the downside to not having those resources?
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I predict NASASpaceflight.com and SpaceNews.com would give you a laundry list of types and depths of coverage they would provide if given only a bit more money. You don't see all the good stuff you're not getting.