Except politics of course. We all know everyone else is wrong.

  • tasty4skin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    PopSci is tricky because on one hand, it’s great that there’s a lot of interest in learning about science and it should be promoted, but on the other, the vast majority of research is so complex that you literally cannot explain it to the layman without making it wrong in some way.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s why Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc are such treasures. They know science, but also are able to explain shit to laypeople. Scientific breakthroughs need to do press releases that the scientists themselves sign off on. Unfortunately, the misunderstood sensationalism gets clicks which makes money, so there’s absolutely zero incentive for these journalists to get the story straight since they’re profit motivated.

      • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both of those people have fallen off hard. Tyson’s head is so far up his own ass that he will talk over you to explain why its actually healthier that way.

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The same Bill Nye that aired the episode “My Sex Junk”? Yeah, please no. That guy isn’t even a real scientist.

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer, then a comedian, then a TV presenter. Unlike (say) Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he was never a research scientist.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not wrong in general, but in the specific case of “X against Y”, it’s simply bad journalism. Every half decent journalist should be able to tell that the original research article might be of relevance for the field, but not the public.

      Especially adding anything cancer-related to the headline is just pure evil. They knew exactly, that it will get many people’s hope up and they’ll click.