4 ms·
I think it's more likely that the bulk of folks don't fully comprehend why this would be so important. I would imagine alot of reporters look at the things the
by ygjb 3y ago
I think it's more likely that the bulk of folks don't fully comprehend why this would be so important. I would imagine alot of reporters look at the things they could write about and the choices are politics, war, polarizing news, or nerds nerding hard trying to prove other nerds right or wrong, and it just doesn't make the cut.
- refulgentis 3y agoNo...that's not the case here, to wit, we can observe writers from these publications discussing it casually.
- zgluck 3y agoThis plus vacation time in the Northern hemisphere - that one science reporter per large news org who actually understands the importance is AFK.
- lolinder 3y agoNewspapers don't work like that. The same reporter isn't responsible for politics, war, and science—they specialize, and a dedicated science reporter is going to be at least as savvy as a random commenter on HN. They may want to cover it and just have a hard time explaining it to their editor, but I think "we can afford to wait until a peer reviewed paper comes out" is more likely.
- fragmede 3y agoRight. There's nothing to write about (yet!), but their science reporter is scrolling science twitter harder than we are. The movie can come later.