3 ms·

Human journalists misrepresent the white paper 85% of the time. With this in mind, 45% doesn't seem so bad anymore

by amarant 1y ago

stmichel 1y ago
You stole my reply haha! However, I was gonna say journalists misrepresent papers and other content 95% of the time...
gerad 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
ribosometronome 1y ago
Hell, human editors seem to misrepresent their journalists frequently enough that I'm left wondering if it's hyperbolic or not to guess if they misrepresent them 45% of the time, too.
- hinkley 1y ago
  HN used to have a policy of not editorializing article titles when published here, but I've caught them modifying headlines a few times to match the source article instead of the linked article. One that stuck out was just the other day, and it had a confusing title that was not only wrong but also hard to parse. Maybe we complained with enough concrete examples of how absolute shit editors and summarizers are now.
SkyBelow 1y ago
Years ago in college, we had a class where we analyzed science in the news for a few weeks compared to the publish research itself. I think it was a 100% misrepresentation rate comparing what a news article summarized about a paper verses what the paper itself said. We weren't going off of CNN or similar main news sites, but news websites aimed at specific types of news which were consistently better than the articles in mainstream news (whenever the underlying research was noteworthy enough to earn a mention on larger sites). Leaving out complete details or only reporting some of the findings weren't enough to count, as it was expected any news summary would reduce the total amount of information being provided about a published paper compared to reading the paper directly. The focus was on looking for summaries that were incorrect or which made claims which the original paper did not support. Probably the most impactful "easy A" class I had in college.
- specialist 1y ago
  That's terrific. Media literacy should be required civics curriculum. I was on my highschool's radio station, part of the broadcast media curriculum. It was awesome. That early experience erased any esteem I had for mass media. (Much as I loved the actual work.) We got to visit local stations, job shadow, produce content for public access cable, make commercials, etc. Meet and interview adults. We also talked with former students, who managed to break into the industry. Since it was a voc tech program, there was no mention of McLuhan, Chomsky, Postman, or any media criticism of any kind. I learned that stuff much later. Yet somehow I was able to intuit the rotten core of our media hellscape.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  The Science News Cycle: https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
- BuddyPickett 1y ago
  I never had any college classes that weren't easy A classes. I think that's all they have.

Human journalists misrepresent the white paper 85% of the time. With this in mind, 45% doesn't seem so bad anymore

stmichel 1y ago

You stole my reply haha! However, I was gonna say journalists misrepresent papers and other content 95% of the time...

gerad 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

ribosometronome 1y ago

Hell, human editors seem to misrepresent their journalists frequently enough that I'm left wondering if it's hyperbolic or not to guess if they misrepresent them 45% of the time, too.

hinkley 1y ago
HN used to have a policy of not editorializing article titles when published here, but I've caught them modifying headlines a few times to match the source article instead of the linked article. One that stuck out was just the other day, and it had a confusing title that was not only wrong but also hard to parse. Maybe we complained with enough concrete examples of how absolute shit editors and summarizers are now.

SkyBelow 1y ago

Years ago in college, we had a class where we analyzed science in the news for a few weeks compared to the publish research itself. I think it was a 100% misrepresentation rate comparing what a news article summarized about a paper verses what the paper itself said. We weren't going off of CNN or similar main news sites, but news websites aimed at specific types of news which were consistently better than the articles in mainstream news (whenever the underlying research was noteworthy enough to earn a mention on larger sites). Leaving out complete details or only reporting some of the findings weren't enough to count, as it was expected any news summary would reduce the total amount of information being provided about a published paper compared to reading the paper directly. The focus was on looking for summaries that were incorrect or which made claims which the original paper did not support. Probably the most impactful "easy A" class I had in college.

specialist 1y ago
That's terrific. Media literacy should be required civics curriculum. I was on my highschool's radio station, part of the broadcast media curriculum. It was awesome. That early experience erased any esteem I had for mass media. (Much as I loved the actual work.) We got to visit local stations, job shadow, produce content for public access cable, make commercials, etc. Meet and interview adults. We also talked with former students, who managed to break into the industry. Since it was a voc tech program, there was no mention of McLuhan, Chomsky, Postman, or any media criticism of any kind. I learned that stuff much later. Yet somehow I was able to intuit the rotten core of our media hellscape.
Terr_ 1y ago
The Science News Cycle: https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
BuddyPickett 1y ago
I never had any college classes that weren't easy A classes. I think that's all they have.