The future of science news reporting in the MSM

The Main Stream Media have increasing trouble reporting science news because journalists are rarely sufficiently expert in specialized fields and just make mistakes. (who is not really MSM),  has found the solution. Just quote lots of snippets from science blogs and with next to no effort they have an incredibly well balanced report!

7 Responses to The future of science news reporting in the MSM

  1. Peter Woit says:

    Is this really Fox News? It looks like it’s some video news service called “Newsy” that I’d never heard of. From a quick look at the piece, they actually seem to have done a pretty good job of covering the story, mixing content from the blogs and video they’ve got from other news sources.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Your right it’s not. I assumed it was because it was on a blog about Fox News and all US newscasts look the same to my unfamiliar eye. Luckily I can edit the text to save myself any further embarrassment.

  2. John Ståhle says:

    Well, at least the silly blabber is a huge step forward in quality from the silly rubbish they usually publish.

  3. Philip Gibbs says:

    There is a slightly different version of this for AOL news

  4. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    This does not look like Faux News. Faux News has its label unmistakenly all over any content it produces. As a former editor of Faux News recently stated, “We make this stuff up.” This makes Faux News in a league beyond other news outlets in the US, where they deceive by omission of facts. Most other regions of the world have some sensible oversight on content that is broadcast so that outright mendacities are not propagated.

    As for this being a signal for the Higgs, well nobody can say one way or the other. The signal to noise ratio does not look too good — low sigma. More data is needed.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I was quite optimistic about the signal initially but now that I know more about the context I am not so sure at all.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        Among the many issues that need to be ironed out, one question of concern is this: how confident are we that QCD background at large pp collision energy is properly modeled? For example, gluon-gluon fusion may have some unexpected features that may not be properly accounted for and may likely produce deviations from conditions seen at RHIC.

%d bloggers like this: