4 ms·

"Deliberately misleading"? In this case the journalists are literally copying the terms the cosmologists are using. From the preprint - "The South Pole Wall ri

"Deliberately misleading"? In this case the journalists are literally copying the terms the cosmologists are using. From the preprint - "The South Pole Wall rivals the Sloan Great Wall in extent, at a distance a factor two closer. The iconic structures that have transformed our understanding of large scale structure have come from the observed distribution of galaxies assembled from redshift surveys: the Perseus−Pisces filament (Giovanelli & Haynes1982), the CfA Great Wall (de Lapparent et al.1986), the Sloan Great Wall (Gott et al. 2005)"

kosievdmerwe 6y ago
The point of a science article like this is for the journalist to act as an intermediate between the scientists and the public. Their job is to communicate an understanding to the lay public using familiar terms and concepts. To let the public learn some part of the wonder of the universe and to let them appreciate the work the scientists did. To do this you have to focus on communicating understanding rather than pure technical accuracy.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The problem is the split in responsibilities. In many news organizations the article and the title are written by different people, and often one article will go through a few titles if necessary. The article is ideally written for understanding, but the title is written to draw in clicks. This split goal results in some really unfortunate titles, even if the article is well written by someone acting in good faith.
P4wl0w 6y ago
Since when does the job of a journalist not demand him to think on his own before copying headlines? If journalists behave this way they can be used by anyone to spread their message unfiltered. This is not what I expect of quality journalism and I will not ever pay for such a careless "work". Copying headlines can be done by machines more efficiently.

kosievdmerwe 6y ago

The point of a science article like this is for the journalist to act as an intermediate between the scientists and the public. Their job is to communicate an understanding to the lay public using familiar terms and concepts. To let the public learn some part of the wonder of the universe and to let them appreciate the work the scientists did. To do this you have to focus on communicating understanding rather than pure technical accuracy.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The problem is the split in responsibilities. In many news organizations the article and the title are written by different people, and often one article will go through a few titles if necessary. The article is ideally written for understanding, but the title is written to draw in clicks. This split goal results in some really unfortunate titles, even if the article is well written by someone acting in good faith.

P4wl0w 6y ago

Since when does the job of a journalist not demand him to think on his own before copying headlines? If journalists behave this way they can be used by anyone to spread their message unfiltered. This is not what I expect of quality journalism and I will not ever pay for such a careless "work". Copying headlines can be done by machines more efficiently.