Noticed this before, but prompted to share it …. The menu at the top of the Guardian Home Page typifies what’s wrong with science media reporting:
Science appears as a sub-category of news at the second level, not a higher level sibling of news, alongside, say Culture, Business, Technology and more.
Science “news” – is predominantly about the process of science of interest to scientists and those with a particular interest in science – things suggested or published as a result of research or experiment. Without gaining the authority of a wider scientific community they are not in themselves new additions to the body of known science, but rather candidates competing for attention (and funding).
Still of wider interest for publication, sure, but better couched for what they are. Wonder how things got that way? Must check out other media channels.
[Post Note : Good one from Sabine Hossenfelder on Facebook. I know it’s only the Daily Mail, but some scary members of the public read this stuff:
I don’t know about the APS, but the German Physics Society allows every member to give a talk at their meetings, pretty much regardless of what the talk is about as long as at least the title has something to do with physics. They clump these people in the alternative session where they can discuss their conspiracy theories among each other. Somebody should have told the daily mail folks that a talk abstract on the website of a society page is not an indicator for scientific quality… It’s kinda funny though.
“UFO expert Nigel Watson, author of the Haynes UFO Investigation Manual, told MailOnline that Dr Brandenburg is not the first to suggest Mars was ‘murdered’ by nuclear explosions.”
Very funny, agreed, but it illustrates the point – that science requires “authority” not simply freedom of publication.]