3 ms·
It's the problem with 3rd / 4th level articles, that is, 1st level is a scientific paper, 2nd is a press release, 3rd / 4th are the media and popular science ou
by Cthulhu_ 2y ago
It's the problem with 3rd / 4th level articles, that is, 1st level is a scientific paper, 2nd is a press release, 3rd / 4th are the media and popular science outlets. It's how you get from some numbers / statistics representing a slight dimming in a distant star to artist's renditions of verdant blue/green exoplanets.
But the scientific papers aren't interesting on their own, they need explanation first so people know what it entails, then entertainment so people get interested. Or in this case, provoke outrage so that they get people upset and reacting to it.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoPapers are interesting, but usually much less accessible. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of scientific reporting. However, many publishers have historically gone overboard with sensationalism, which spurred a lot of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment. In this case, I don't think it is really warranted. I thought the article was about as straight forward as one could expect for an introduction of this length, and avoided sensationalism. The only hazard mentioned is that to satellites, which is mentioned as a concern on area of research in the original article (which they actually linked for once!).