7 ms·
News.com.au is essentially an Australian tabloid. Then they quote their source as being (what I believe is) essentially a British tabloid. This isn't exactly w
by Andrenid 14y ago
News.com.au is essentially an Australian tabloid. Then they quote their source as being (what I believe is) essentially a British tabloid.
This isn't exactly what I expect to see at the top of HN?
- KwanEsq 14y agoI could be wrong, but I believe The Times is generally regarded as a respectable paper over here, and I presume the same to be true of its Sunday counterpart.
- mrkmcknz 14y agoThe Sunday Times is no tabloid, but interestingly I couldn't find this on the times website. I will however go out and act like a 20th century nobleman and buy the newspaper today and update the original article if I can find it.
- czzarr 14y agoagreed, how come this article doesn't link to any more serious publications? I'm tired of dumb journalists using science to make a quick buzz. It's like that kid who had allegedly found a way to derive more energies by making solar panels in the shape of trees, it was complete bullshit.
- exDM69 14y agoTraditional media has awful citation conventions. Basically the journalist adds a vague source just to wash his/her hands in case the story turns out to be false. In this case an Australian paper refers to a British paper (without a link or an exact reference) and the story is about a German scientific publication. So this is third or fourth hand story, and you can just guess how much has been lost in translation.
- aeurielesn 14y agoI have been wondering the same thing from some time ago but I only get downvoted. Truth be told, the quality of the homepage/top links has overwhelmingly decreased and a lot of sensationalism have taken over. Most probably the same way this comment will also get downvoted but I don't care.