4 ms·
The first paragraph from the article linked in OP is: > "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely cer
by A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
The first paragraph from the article linked in OP is:
> "The Dendra armor, one of the oldest suits of bronze armor ever found, had been considered a purely ceremonial piece. It seemed impossible to use in battle due to its cumbersome design."
Of course, this is completely false. It's more of a journalism problem than an issue with the study they're reporting on, of course.
> "Earlier experiments with replicas demonstrated its flexibility for use in combat but not its suitability for use in extended battle contexts [...]. Was it purely ceremonial [...]?"
This is a remarkably thin justification. If a set of armor can be used in combat, then its suitability for extended use hinges only on its weight and weight distribution. (Assuming the set doesn't include a closed helmet, as those can be troublesome in other respects; they can make it hard to breathe and hard to see.) A simple in silico ergonomics study, the kind that can be run in a single afternoon, could have answered their question. Though, admittedly, that would be less fun.
- hoobastank_fan 2y agoIt’s interesting that you pillory journalism here as if a crime has been committed, while simultaneously reading the least charitable interpretation of the words possible, then concluding absolutes like “completely false,” which is itself your interpretation and most charitable to you being the arbiter of truth here. And you’re on this horse regarding imagining what ancient armor was used for. You don’t know. The people quoted don’t know. Nobody knows. If the journalist talked to one guy who said you know, I think that’s ceremonial, blah blah, the quote is fair. One person thought it. One person told the reporter as much. You disagree. Journalism is working as intended. Tip for the future: “journalism is broken” is usually a synonym for “I’ve taken a position that differs, and I therefore overfeel that the world is doing things wrong”.
- tsimionescu 2y agoA journalist is never supposed to report something they got from a single source with words like "it was considered". They're generally not supposed to report soemthing they got from a single source at all. But if they do, it should be "so-and-so believed it was purely ceremonial" or "we've spoken with one professor who believed it was purely ceremonial". But the job of journalists is to do the research. That's the whole purpose of good journalism: ask around, build some context on a story, then report it. Don't just tell me what one guy believed, I can find that out on my own. Tell me if others with context also believe the same: that's the part I don't have time for.
- dumpsterdiver 2y agoAgreed. Applying the views of few to many displays a lack of journalistic integrity. It’s a distasteful pattern that has become pervasive, but even more disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to be comfortable with it.
- smallnamespace 2y agoAnyone can make stuff up. I'll happily make up 19 different things and tell it to you with a straight face, all before lunch. It seems like the whole point of elevating a field of activity and dignifying it with a fancy term like journalism is that it has some sort of standards. Otherwise, what good is it to anyone? If it doesn't have standards, then we should just call it "people making up random stuff" instead. Then at least we'd be describing things with a bit more accuracy.