5 ms·

Hate it when scientific publications too started focusing more on creating fear and uncertainty rather than explaining what is going on. This has been the case

Hate it when scientific publications too started focusing more on creating fear and uncertainty rather than explaining what is going on. This has been the case for a while now. In this case, there are possible explanations as to why this is happening. [1] explains some of them. I don't understand why Wired chose to omit those. This Wired article just states that ocean temps are high, without going into causes, anomalies or even reasons or theories. Going by [1] > But there's an immediate cause too: the rare triple-dip La Niña is over. During this cycle, cooler water from deep in the ocean upwells to the surface. It's like the Pacific Ocean's air conditioner is running. But now the air conditioner is turned off. It's likely we're set for an El Niño, which tends to bring hotter, dryer weather to Australia. > When you run your air conditioner, you're masking the heat outside. It's the same for our oceans. La Niña brought three years of cooler conditions, while global warming continued apace. I don't mind an article with details of what is going on. Obviously that is important. But as a science journalist, there is an equal responsibility to help try and explain it. If not anything else, contextualize it. Thousands of people will read it and share it. [2[ is also a better coverage of the same story before the follow up with reasons. As a direct comparison, notice the difference in tone, and how they contextualize what is happening. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-hot-ocean-temperatures-hottest.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-hot-ocean-temperatures-hottest... [2]: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-earth-hot-sudden-ocean-spike.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-earth-hot-sudden-ocean-spike.h...

ftxbro 3y ago
> Hate it when scientific publications too started focusing more on creating fear and uncertainty rather than explaining what is going on. Just so I'm clear, you are calling Wired a scientific publication? EDIT: Thanks for the explanation of the science parts by the way. I read it instead of the article.
- ankit219 3y ago
  What i meant was that a publication which covers topics related to science and have specific reporters with beats around those topics. poor choice of words. Also credit to phys.org to be honest. They explain these topics in very simple terms
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Wired isn't a scientific publication.
dimal 3y ago
> I don't understand why Wired chose to omit those. I like to think I’m a rational person, but I read the headline, got alarmed and clicked on the link. I read the article and got more alarmed, and so I clicked on another link within the article. The purpose of news is not to inform. It’s to generate fear based on biases and use that to generate clicks and more fear. If done well, it’s designed to create an unvirtuous circle of fear and clicks. This article served its purpose perfectly.
- bleuchase 3y ago
  > The purpose of news is not to inform. It’s to generate fear based on biases and use that to generate clicks and more fear. If done well, it’s designed to create an unvirtuous circle of fear and clicks. Ding ding ding ding ding
jackmott42 3y ago
It is a common claim that the way to fight misinformation and propaganda is with better ideas, clear and rational and calm explanation. At age 44 I only see evidence that the opposite is true. This is problematic of course, to accomplish something important or good, you have to be somewhat of a bad person at times, perhaps. Or perhaps there is some other way, but the completely disingenuous fear uncertainty and doubt generated by the likes of big oil, the koch brothers, the heritage foundation, absolutely 100% worked. The calm rational approach lost. My children will suffer for it. So at times I wonder if actually I should be encouraging the good causes to do what works. What do you think?

ftxbro 3y ago

> Hate it when scientific publications too started focusing more on creating fear and uncertainty rather than explaining what is going on. Just so I'm clear, you are calling Wired a scientific publication? EDIT: Thanks for the explanation of the science parts by the way. I read it instead of the article.

ankit219 3y ago
What i meant was that a publication which covers topics related to science and have specific reporters with beats around those topics. poor choice of words. Also credit to phys.org to be honest. They explain these topics in very simple terms

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Wired isn't a scientific publication.

dimal 3y ago

> I don't understand why Wired chose to omit those. I like to think I’m a rational person, but I read the headline, got alarmed and clicked on the link. I read the article and got more alarmed, and so I clicked on another link within the article. The purpose of news is not to inform. It’s to generate fear based on biases and use that to generate clicks and more fear. If done well, it’s designed to create an unvirtuous circle of fear and clicks. This article served its purpose perfectly.

bleuchase 3y ago
> The purpose of news is not to inform. It’s to generate fear based on biases and use that to generate clicks and more fear. If done well, it’s designed to create an unvirtuous circle of fear and clicks. Ding ding ding ding ding

jackmott42 3y ago

It is a common claim that the way to fight misinformation and propaganda is with better ideas, clear and rational and calm explanation. At age 44 I only see evidence that the opposite is true. This is problematic of course, to accomplish something important or good, you have to be somewhat of a bad person at times, perhaps. Or perhaps there is some other way, but the completely disingenuous fear uncertainty and doubt generated by the likes of big oil, the koch brothers, the heritage foundation, absolutely 100% worked. The calm rational approach lost. My children will suffer for it. So at times I wonder if actually I should be encouraging the good causes to do what works. What do you think?