3 ms·

Why doesn't BBC link to the actual paper: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/09/bjsports-2020-103274 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/09/bjsp

by yread 6y ago

Why doesn't BBC link to the actual paper: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/09/bjsports-2020-103274 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/09/bjsports-2020-... Results: The HIA process confirmed concussion in 106 players (HIA+) and excluded this in 50 (HIA−). 32 sncRNAs were significantly differentially expressed across these two groups, with let-7f-5p showing the highest area under the curve (AUC) at 36–48 hours. Additionally, a combined panel of 14 sncRNAs (let-7a-5p, miR-143-3p, miR-103a-3p, miR-34b-3p, RNU6-7, RNU6-45, Snora57, snoU13.120, tRNA18Arg-CCT, U6-168, U6-428, U6-1249, Uco22cjg1,YRNA_255) could differentiate concussed subjects from all other groups, including players who were HIA− and controls, immediately after the game (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1) and 36–48 hours later (AUC 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1). When prospectively tested, the panel confirmed high predictive accuracy (AUC 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1 post-game and AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1 at 36–48 hours).

thepangolino 6y ago
Not linking to the actual paper(s) is sadly an awfully frequent issue with all "science" reporting.
- OJFord 6y ago
  The journalist who wrote this for the BBC almost certainly didn't even glance at it either, they just wrote up something from Reuters or Associated Press say, which more likely did link the paper. Also, it's not even '"science" reporting', it's "Sport" reporting.
  - lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
    That'd explain it. The science reporters at the BBC almost always link to original studies, but I guess the sport team haven't faced that issue.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  It's not just lazy reporting. It implies a " trust us" attitude, which makes me sad. I want the purest form of truth i can possibly get. If some people are happy to let the BBC [edit: or most news outlets] filter their news for them, i've learnt it's not such a good idea. you end up missing a lot and the truth can be distorted. That is why i highly value HN, we have here professionals reporting on things they know about, HN is a wonderful site, packed with knowledgable people even if the subjects may be limited. I'm glad i found this place. (and i'm sorry if no one else is [edit: that i found it.] I'm trying :).
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Because minimal people reading a news website are going to follow that link, I guess. I mean, if you're relying on a news agency to follow scientific news, you're probably not in the population that can easily interpret scientific papers.
- cldellow 6y ago
  That makes sense to me, but as a reader, I'd still value such a link for a few reasons. - It helps me believe the website is aware of the source material (vs re-reporting some other news site's content) - In cases where there are multiple stories over time, it makes it easier to disambiguate which story is about which event. This happens often with legal cases, where there are different judgments from different motions or even from different trials about the same underlying thing. As a lay person, I don't need to understand the source document to be able to understand that three different media outlets are discussing the same document, provided that they each link to the same document - It decreases the effort for an authority to vet the news story. This sends a signal to me that the organization welcomes such vetting, or at least thinks they'd stand up well to it
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Oh, I agree, I would be in favour of it also. I'm just trying to see it from the POV of a reporter or editor desperately trying to avoid getting tasked with a top 10 list article. Actually, maybe adding actual goddamned references would increase their newsworthiness. There is also the issue though, that journos/editors aren't experts, and could linking to a paper be construed as endorsing it, when it might turn out to be wrong?

by yread 6y ago

thepangolino 6y ago

Not linking to the actual paper(s) is sadly an awfully frequent issue with all "science" reporting.

OJFord 6y ago
The journalist who wrote this for the BBC almost certainly didn't even glance at it either, they just wrote up something from Reuters or Associated Press say, which more likely did link the paper. Also, it's not even '"science" reporting', it's "Sport" reporting.
- lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
  That'd explain it. The science reporters at the BBC almost always link to original studies, but I guess the sport team haven't faced that issue.
marshmallow_12 6y ago
It's not just lazy reporting. It implies a " trust us" attitude, which makes me sad. I want the purest form of truth i can possibly get. If some people are happy to let the BBC [edit: or most news outlets] filter their news for them, i've learnt it's not such a good idea. you end up missing a lot and the truth can be distorted. That is why i highly value HN, we have here professionals reporting on things they know about, HN is a wonderful site, packed with knowledgable people even if the subjects may be limited. I'm glad i found this place. (and i'm sorry if no one else is [edit: that i found it.] I'm trying :).

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Because minimal people reading a news website are going to follow that link, I guess. I mean, if you're relying on a news agency to follow scientific news, you're probably not in the population that can easily interpret scientific papers.

cldellow 6y ago
That makes sense to me, but as a reader, I'd still value such a link for a few reasons. - It helps me believe the website is aware of the source material (vs re-reporting some other news site's content) - In cases where there are multiple stories over time, it makes it easier to disambiguate which story is about which event. This happens often with legal cases, where there are different judgments from different motions or even from different trials about the same underlying thing. As a lay person, I don't need to understand the source document to be able to understand that three different media outlets are discussing the same document, provided that they each link to the same document - It decreases the effort for an authority to vet the news story. This sends a signal to me that the organization welcomes such vetting, or at least thinks they'd stand up well to it
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Oh, I agree, I would be in favour of it also. I'm just trying to see it from the POV of a reporter or editor desperately trying to avoid getting tasked with a top 10 list article. Actually, maybe adding actual goddamned references would increase their newsworthiness. There is also the issue though, that journos/editors aren't experts, and could linking to a paper be construed as endorsing it, when it might turn out to be wrong?