I’ve been a researcher for over a decade and I literally started declining all media contacts because of my terrible experience with so-called “journalists”. Most of the journalists I interacted with did clearly not give a single shit about sharing my actual findings. All they want is a cool headline even if it means completely disrespecting years of work as well as their audience. I’ve seen journalists, who committed to take my feedback about whether they reported the theory or findings correctly, publish complete bullshit without checking with me. Others cited my paper while giving a summary of the findings of another paper and some literally and blatantly lied in a documentary. They still publish bullshit but at least they don’t waste my time anymore and I no longer read “scientific” papers available to the general public knowing what’s behind the scene.
The worst part is when they refuse to let you correct the science in the article because that would violate their journalistic ethics, but they still refuse to change the inaccuracies.
Exactly, I didn’t want to amend their paper myself, I just wanted to tell them which parts were inaccurate so they could change it. It blatantly shows that they don’t care about sharing valid information and that they don’t give a shit about our work or the people they “inform”. And I’m talking about massive media’s like the discovery channel for instance. Ironically, one of the few who did a good job was a tiny web journal. They took my feedback into account and it was the best article about my work that was published that year.
That 20,000 times bit is directly from the data. I read the article and it seemed pretty clear and not over exaggerated.
Maybe. It was just funny timing.
Whoever the comic is so right that even of the number is tall, I expect to see no difference. One of the usual cool headlines that in practice mean noting
I mean a 1000% increase in .0001% effectiveness os either really impressive, or not impressive at all depending on how you look at it.