3 ms·
> This isn't scientific. This isn't journalism. And ... If you're looking for "Hypothesis...Data...Analysis...Conclusion" hard Science, then you are correct
by bell-cot 1y ago
> This isn't scientific. This isn't journalism. And ...
If you're looking for "Hypothesis...Data...Analysis...Conclusion" hard Science, then you are correct - it obviously is not. That kinda science just ain't published on general news sites like The Guardian.
But if you're looking for Journalism - the article is an obvious "if it bleeds, it leads"-type story. Replace the old "Crime Wave" with "Climate Change", then replace "Violence in Nice Neighborhoods" with "Hot in Cold Countries". No one familiar with newspapers expects them to do serious criminology and statistics when they're publishing Bleeds/Leads articles. For better or worse, it ain't in their business model.
- chiefalchemist 1y agoYes. Thank you. Of course. But… This isn’t Reddit. It’s HN. Why is such trite shite on HN?
- bell-cot 1y agoCharitable take: Finding what we might call an HN-quality current article on a specific topic - in English - can take some real work. And if a good discussion gets going on HN, it's going to be better than 90% of such articles anyway. So - if someone is hoping for a good discussion of a specific topic on HN, but not too interested in working to find a great article, then it's easy to hit [submit], and cross their fingers.
- chiefalchemist 1y agoFair play. But my analysis that this is BS shouldn’t be DV’ed. The oversimplification of HN “thinking” - even when faced with obvious second rate content - is disheartening