4 ms·
That sounds like uncalled-for negativity. Is the Guardian really known for bad science reporting?
by gpvos 3y ago
That sounds like uncalled-for negativity. Is the Guardian really known for bad science reporting?
- lordfrito 3y agoJust my way of saying that I would expect real new-physics evidence/breakthroughs would first be reported through science journals before eventually ending up as a watered down story on The Guardian. I was mainly surprised to see it there first, and that triggered my automatic skepticism.
- marcosdumay 3y agoYou mean it's uncalled that people react negatively to an article with a title claiming that all of physics is broken when the fact is that there's a small adjustment in a value that we don't have a good theory to predict?
- moribvndvs 3y agoI mean they didn’t claim that all of physics is broken, but ok.
- marcosdumay 3y ago"There is an entire fundamental force that we didn't take into account" is as close to declaring every physics model broken as you can get. That tittle implies a very surprising result.
- jfengel 3y agoThe Guardian is fine as general news sources go. But something like this is extremely speculative, and there's not much for a general reader to take away. It's not the Eureka stage, it's the "that's funny" stage.
- wiredfool 3y agoIs spelling part of science?
- Aromasin 3y agoA lot of people shirk at the Guardian because it's a notoriously left-wing, progressive paper politically. People often mirror their sentiments about that onto other, none political articles unfortunately. On the science side it's mostly written by Nicola Davis. She has a MChem and DPhil in organic chemistry from the University of Oxford, which is more than most sciences journalists can say. However, she has a pretty prestigious output; anywhere between 5 and 20 articles a month. Seems like a lot of "read a journal article, write a slightly sensationalist story around it". Not the worst in the industry by any means. Her Guardian bio: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nicola-davis https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nicola-davis
- gpvos 3y agoI see the first item as a plus (it's why I pay them a little); it certainly shouldn't impede good reporting. Looks like the science department is a bit thinly staffed though.