3 ms·

You mean journalistic articles, not scientific/published "articles". Also, to paint all journalistic articles as white sugar is simply flat-out wrong. There are

You mean journalistic articles, not scientific/published "articles". Also, to paint all journalistic articles as white sugar is simply flat-out wrong. There are numerous fantastically written journalistic articles written by fantastic book writers. These can be jumping-off points to then purchase a book or find that scientific publication. I think it's better just to call them layman's writing instead of white sugar, as processed sugar is basically a toxin. Understanding layman's writing will get you nowhere in the real world, except as a stepping-stone to further knowledge. Sugar, on the other hand, is actively harming people and is not a stepping-stone to healthy living.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Under your definition, I'd classify most magazine and news articles as processed sugar. It is toxic, to the extent that clickbait headlines, inaccuracies, errors and lies in articles, convey negative knowledge to the reader.
- randcraw 7y ago
  I'd say popular magazine articles and research articles share similar demerits, just from different perspectives. The popular article is shallow and broad and overspimplified while the research article is deep and narrow and usually overcomplicated. Thus both provide a less than ideal introduction into any novel subject, though I see most popular articles as less 'toxic' than most research articles, especially towards encouraging further interest in the neophyte reader.
dredmorbius 7y ago
There's a tremendous amount of bad scientific writing as well. Much of induced by publish-or-perish, grant-chasing, and signalling dynamics. For journalism, relevant, incisive, investigative journalism is gold. Much of what's written is simple pro-forma, filler, stenography, or worst of all: republished press releases -- APR and VPR (audio / video press release) for radio and television, the original "fake news": https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news A key question for me is whether the article intends principally to inform rather than persuade or distract. Virtually all current business, "style", entertainment/culture, and big-ticket sales (real estate, autos, travel) "reporting" is thinly veiled advertising. A large fraction of political coverage is either stenography or persuasive rhetoric. Writing with the reader in mind, or at least with the writer's (or client's) ego / wallet, out of mind, is rare.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Under your definition, I'd classify most magazine and news articles as processed sugar. It is toxic, to the extent that clickbait headlines, inaccuracies, errors and lies in articles, convey negative knowledge to the reader.

randcraw 7y ago
I'd say popular magazine articles and research articles share similar demerits, just from different perspectives. The popular article is shallow and broad and overspimplified while the research article is deep and narrow and usually overcomplicated. Thus both provide a less than ideal introduction into any novel subject, though I see most popular articles as less 'toxic' than most research articles, especially towards encouraging further interest in the neophyte reader.

dredmorbius 7y ago

There's a tremendous amount of bad scientific writing as well. Much of induced by publish-or-perish, grant-chasing, and signalling dynamics. For journalism, relevant, incisive, investigative journalism is gold. Much of what's written is simple pro-forma, filler, stenography, or worst of all: republished press releases -- APR and VPR (audio / video press release) for radio and television, the original "fake news": https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news A key question for me is whether the article intends principally to inform rather than persuade or distract. Virtually all current business, "style", entertainment/culture, and big-ticket sales (real estate, autos, travel) "reporting" is thinly veiled advertising. A large fraction of political coverage is either stenography or persuasive rhetoric. Writing with the reader in mind, or at least with the writer's (or client's) ego / wallet, out of mind, is rare.