4 ms·

>> the need for ephemeral news-able items to make a science publication actually compelling to a larger non-technical audience What is this need of which you s

>> the need for ephemeral news-able items to make a science publication actually compelling to a larger non-technical audience What is this need of which you speak? Let's say some responsible journalistic outlet decided to just store it up, filter it, edit it and publish it in something like Popular Mechanics. Does that mean that Yahoo and Google have to still scrape the bottom of the barrel for new daily garbage from space-fun.biz to fill their "science news" sections?

barry-cotter 4y ago
Scientific American is already scraping the bottom of the barrel. You can’t trust any publication to be written in good faith. > Scientific American has hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist. > It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology, though she says she “intimately familiarized [herself] with Wilson’s work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior.” https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/30/scientific-american-does-an-asinine-hit-job-on-e-o-wilson-calling-him-a-racist/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/30/scientific-america... https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-shameful-decline-of-scientific-american-a028b90d0bdd https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-shameful-decline... > Scientific American just did a hit job on one of America’s leading biologists and conservationists. All that, right after his passing. This marks a shameful low point in a steep decline of the magazine in recent years. > Scientific American is the oldest magazine in the US dealing with science. Continuously in print since 1845, it is known for being full of articles by world-class scientists on different topics. According to its About page, over 200 Nobel Prize winners have contributed to it.

barry-cotter 4y ago

Scientific American is already scraping the bottom of the barrel. You can’t trust any publication to be written in good faith. > Scientific American has hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist. > It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology, though she says she “intimately familiarized [herself] with Wilson’s work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior.” https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/30/scientific-american-does-an-asinine-hit-job-on-e-o-wilson-calling-him-a-racist/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/30/scientific-america... https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-shameful-decline-of-scientific-american-a028b90d0bdd https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-shameful-decline... > Scientific American just did a hit job on one of America’s leading biologists and conservationists. All that, right after his passing. This marks a shameful low point in a steep decline of the magazine in recent years. > Scientific American is the oldest magazine in the US dealing with science. Continuously in print since 1845, it is known for being full of articles by world-class scientists on different topics. According to its About page, over 200 Nobel Prize winners have contributed to it.