4 ms·

The blunt fact is that the vast majority of positive news is purely the result of PR organizations. In this case, MIT has a fairly good PR team. So what happen

The blunt fact is that the vast majority of positive news is purely the result of PR organizations. In this case, MIT has a fairly good PR team. So what happen is the MIT PR org just monitors what papers MIT researchers are submitting to journals or presenting at conferences. Then the PR org gets in touch with the researchers and writes up a more accessible version of the paper on MIT News along with a press release. Then the PR guys go round to a series of their contacts in the media - places like FreeThink, Futurism, Insider, etc. They'll send out a press release which does 99% of the work writing up the article including choice quotes from the author and make themselves available for Q&A etc. Seeing this as an easy way to fill space on their website the reporters just basically copy and paste it onto their website, maybe punch it up a bit, put the website's specific spin on it etc. What this whole process doesn't involve is anyone saying "Hang on, is this actually an important or interesting story". Does this invention move forward the cutting edge of desalination? Probably not. But it does boost MIT's reputation. Which is what this article is for. MIT isn't more innovative than other institutions necessarily, but they are spending much more effort advertising their innovations.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dalbasal 4y ago
You are absolutely correct on the meat of this. What parent is observing is mostly a more consistent PR operation. That said, some of that is too sharp. There is some degree of "is this actually an important or interesting story." That's what the journalists/editors do. That's what the upvote button here is for. It also happens pretty extensively in HN's comments. The article itself expresses skepticism about the invention. I agree that it's not done very thoroughly, but skepticism definitely does exist in the process. In any case, it's all pretty primitive. If this invention is worth discussing, it should be discussed. This article demonstrates how lame discussing with yourself is. Where are the researchers, peers, people in the know. The subject matter here is a bad fit for factual reporting. We need subjective opinion. "Is this thing interesting?"
adamsmith143 4y ago
MIT is definitely among the top in the world for most impactful papers, Patents granted, Startups created, Nobel Prize winners etc. So there really is something special about it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dalbasal 4y ago

You are absolutely correct on the meat of this. What parent is observing is mostly a more consistent PR operation. That said, some of that is too sharp. There is some degree of "is this actually an important or interesting story." That's what the journalists/editors do. That's what the upvote button here is for. It also happens pretty extensively in HN's comments. The article itself expresses skepticism about the invention. I agree that it's not done very thoroughly, but skepticism definitely does exist in the process. In any case, it's all pretty primitive. If this invention is worth discussing, it should be discussed. This article demonstrates how lame discussing with yourself is. Where are the researchers, peers, people in the know. The subject matter here is a bad fit for factual reporting. We need subjective opinion. "Is this thing interesting?"

adamsmith143 4y ago

MIT is definitely among the top in the world for most impactful papers, Patents granted, Startups created, Nobel Prize winners etc. So there really is something special about it.