39 ms·

Its fun beating up journalists, but the examples they give are exactly the ones that appear in the press release, which has direct quotes about them from the sc

Its fun beating up journalists, but the examples they give are exactly the ones that appear in the press release, which has direct quotes about them from the scientists. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/bu-brd030619.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/bu-brd030619... So in this case, if you have a bone to pick, it's not with the journalist.

dang 7y ago
> the examples they give are exactly the ones that appear in the press release, That's not true. For example, The Fast Company article says "they could be stacked to build soundproof yet transprent walls. Cubicles will never be the same." The press release doesn't include that. This makes sense because it ties in to the emotionally charged reference to "your coworkers" in the title, which is not a trick that the press release pulls. More significantly, the Fast Company article is written in a cloying hyperbolic style while the press release is pretty neutral. And the titles are beyond comparison, which is probably the most significant thing because titles have the greatest influence on discussion. Many readers have developed allergic reactions to titles like "Scientists have discovered a shape that blocks all sound–even your co-workers", which insult the intelligence so badly. What's interesting is how the journalistic outlet has to be so much more exaggerated and use so many more tricks even than a press release. Presumably this reflects the economics of media vs. that of universities.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "What's interesting is how the journalistic outlet has to be so much more exaggerated and use so many more tricks even than a press release. Presumably this reflects the economics of media vs. that of universities." This really depends on the media outlet. Some, like Fast Company are full of uncritical puff pieces about the industry they cover, others not so much. Economics certainly play a role, however -- from media being soft on their advertisers to industry execs writing for, editing, owning, or having input on hiring/firing decisions to certain media outlets pandering to the lowest common denominator and deliberately writing the most hyperbolic, sensationalistic articles to be popular with readers fond of that sort of fare and outcompete other media that aren't quite as sensationalitic. It's a winning formula, as can be witnessed by the widespread success of tabloids. Not all media is like this, though.
- Angostura 7y ago
  So, if the main complaint is hyperbole over the ability to build cubicles that block office noise, I would draw your attention to this passage from the press release > Ghaffarivardavagh and Zhang also point to the unsightliness of the sound barriers used today to reduce noise pollution from traffic and see room for an aesthetic upgrade. "Our structure is super lightweight, open, and beautiful. Each piece could be used as a tile or brick to scale up and build a sound-canceling, permeable wall," they say. ... > "When we want to create a wall, we will go to a hexagonal shape" that can fit together like an open-air honeycomb structure. > Such walls could help contain many types of noises. Even those from the intense vibrations of an MRI machine, Zhang says. Nothing there suggests that the journalists were indulging in hyperbole, although they were clearly being light hearted. However, the comment to which I originally replied seemed to be indulging in hypobole.
  - dang 7y ago
    I'd say the main complaints were the cloying text and the infantilizing title. Many HN readers find these things more than a little annoying, and this was a particularly strong case. Your quotes don't mention anything about office noise, cubicles, or coworkers. Why would they add those in? Presumably to make the content more sensational, since that's the effect it has.

dang 7y ago

> the examples they give are exactly the ones that appear in the press release, That's not true. For example, The Fast Company article says "they could be stacked to build soundproof yet transprent walls. Cubicles will never be the same." The press release doesn't include that. This makes sense because it ties in to the emotionally charged reference to "your coworkers" in the title, which is not a trick that the press release pulls. More significantly, the Fast Company article is written in a cloying hyperbolic style while the press release is pretty neutral. And the titles are beyond comparison, which is probably the most significant thing because titles have the greatest influence on discussion. Many readers have developed allergic reactions to titles like "Scientists have discovered a shape that blocks all sound–even your co-workers", which insult the intelligence so badly. What's interesting is how the journalistic outlet has to be so much more exaggerated and use so many more tricks even than a press release. Presumably this reflects the economics of media vs. that of universities.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"What's interesting is how the journalistic outlet has to be so much more exaggerated and use so many more tricks even than a press release. Presumably this reflects the economics of media vs. that of universities." This really depends on the media outlet. Some, like Fast Company are full of uncritical puff pieces about the industry they cover, others not so much. Economics certainly play a role, however -- from media being soft on their advertisers to industry execs writing for, editing, owning, or having input on hiring/firing decisions to certain media outlets pandering to the lowest common denominator and deliberately writing the most hyperbolic, sensationalistic articles to be popular with readers fond of that sort of fare and outcompete other media that aren't quite as sensationalitic. It's a winning formula, as can be witnessed by the widespread success of tabloids. Not all media is like this, though.
Angostura 7y ago
So, if the main complaint is hyperbole over the ability to build cubicles that block office noise, I would draw your attention to this passage from the press release > Ghaffarivardavagh and Zhang also point to the unsightliness of the sound barriers used today to reduce noise pollution from traffic and see room for an aesthetic upgrade. "Our structure is super lightweight, open, and beautiful. Each piece could be used as a tile or brick to scale up and build a sound-canceling, permeable wall," they say. ... > "When we want to create a wall, we will go to a hexagonal shape" that can fit together like an open-air honeycomb structure. > Such walls could help contain many types of noises. Even those from the intense vibrations of an MRI machine, Zhang says. Nothing there suggests that the journalists were indulging in hyperbole, although they were clearly being light hearted. However, the comment to which I originally replied seemed to be indulging in hypobole.
- dang 7y ago
  I'd say the main complaints were the cloying text and the infantilizing title. Many HN readers find these things more than a little annoying, and this was a particularly strong case. Your quotes don't mention anything about office noise, cubicles, or coworkers. Why would they add those in? Presumably to make the content more sensational, since that's the effect it has.