Perpetual Journalism - CERN in the news

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter diogenesNY
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cern News
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around media representations of CERN's particle collision experiments, particularly focusing on the terminology used in headlines and articles. Participants critique how the press conveys scientific concepts related to the Big Bang and the implications of high-energy particle collisions, examining the accuracy and sensationalism in reporting.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the term "Big Bang machine" used by both Reuters and the New York Post, arguing it inaccurately represents the purpose of the LHC, which is to investigate electroweak breaking rather than to recreate the Big Bang.
  • Others highlight the sarcastic nature of the New York Post's headline "the world doesn't end," suggesting it was intended to poke fun at doomsday predictions rather than convey serious news.
  • A participant criticizes the Reuters article for perpetuating misconceptions about the Big Bang as an explosion of mass and energy into space, which they argue is a popular inaccuracy.
  • Some participants find humor in the media's portrayal of the situation, noting the absurdity of the doomsday narrative surrounding high-energy physics experiments.
  • There is mention of Michio Kaku referring to the LHC as a "Genesis machine," which adds to the discussion about the appropriateness of such terminology in media coverage.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the media's terminology or the effectiveness of the articles. Disagreement exists regarding the accuracy of the headlines and the implications of the language used in reporting on CERN's experiments.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential for misunderstanding in the public's perception of high-energy physics due to sensationalist headlines and the challenge of accurately conveying complex scientific concepts in media.

diogenesNY
Messages
230
Reaction score
259
Dateline March 31, 2010
Once again, the popular press serves up a pig's breakfast:

From Reuters:

CERN goes back to the beginning [headline]
Physicists smashed subatomic particles into each other with record energy yesterday, creating thousands of mini-Big Bangs like the primeval explosion that gave birth to the universe 13.7 billion years ago. [italics mine] CERN scientists say colorful images reflect what happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang as matter and energy was spewed out, [italics mine again] leading to the formation of galaxies stars and planets, and eventually the appearance of life.

---

However my hometown paper, the New York Post did me proud as usual. The headline on the relevant article [byline Alexander Higgins] therein declared:

Big Bang machine fires & WORLD DOESN'T END!

The article that followed was actually fairly accurate, descriptive and sober.
No mention of the event on 'Page Six'.

respectfully submitted,
diogenesNY
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
diogenesNY said:
Big Bang machine fires & WORLD DOESN'T END!
I do not quite get why you are so proud. There is nothing much wrong with Reuters' quotation, except that they report "Big Bang machine" which is also what your newspaper report. This is not very accurate, and I keep thinking "what are we going to tell the press when we have a higher energy machine ?". At LHC, we probe the electroweak breaking, which happens to be early in the Universe. But there is earlier, and the point is not "to go early", the point is precisely "to investigate the electroweak breaking". From this point of view, both papers are "poor", but I do not blame them, since they did not come up with the idea on their own : CERN basically began this "Big Bang machine" advertising.

Anyway, I am much more upset by a paper titling "the world does not end". First, this is obviously no news, second there was never any doubt before turning the machine on. If you are a journalist, you do not even need to pick up your phone, you can just check out the published, very pedagogical answers. From this point of view, this is not poor, this is bad.

Maybe you can elaborate why your newspaper is better than Reuters ?
 
Perhaps the reference is a bit too local... The New York Post is somewhat known for their snarky and a bit sarcastic headlines, often broadcast at high volume. (Remember HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR ?) I think that this was a case of them having a little bit of self referential fun at the expense of the doomsday set, whom they often hold up to a bit of ridicule... especially given the fairly straightforward article that followed.

My objection to the Reuters piece was it's perpetuation of the popular inaccuracy that the Big Bang a) was a cosmogenic model, and b) expressed it as an explosion of mass and energy into space.

--diogenesNY
humanino said:
I do not quite get why you are so proud. There is nothing much wrong with Reuters' quotation, except that they report "Big Bang machine" which is also what your newspaper report. This is not very accurate, and I keep thinking "what are we going to tell the press when we have a higher energy machine ?". At LHC, we probe the electroweak breaking, which happens to be early in the Universe. But there is earlier, and the point is not "to go early", the point is precisely "to investigate the electroweak breaking". From this point of view, both papers are "poor", but I do not blame them, since they did not come up with the idea on their own : CERN basically began this "Big Bang machine" advertising.

Anyway, I am much more upset by a paper titling "the world does not end". First, this is obviously no news, second there was never any doubt before turning the machine on. If you are a journalist, you do not even need to pick up your phone, you can just check out the published, very pedagogical answers. From this point of view, this is not poor, this is bad.

Maybe you can elaborate why your newspaper is better than Reuters ?
 
I thought it was funny. With all the scares of "the world will end!212387918274"
 
diogenesNY said:
Perhaps the reference is a bit too local... The New York Post is somewhat known for their snarky and a bit sarcastic headlines, often broadcast at high volume. (Remember HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR ?) I think that this was a case of them having a little bit of self referential fun at the expense of the doomsday set, whom they often hold up to a bit of ridicule... especially given the fairly straightforward article that followed.

My objection to the Reuters piece was it's perpetuation of the popular inaccuracy that the Big Bang a) was a cosmogenic model, and b) expressed it as an explosion of mass and energy into space.
Thanks for the clarification diogenesNY.
 
Anytime the media reports the world doesn't end it's obviously being sarcastic. We all know the world did end
 
It does not help when Michio Kaku calls it a "Genesis machine."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFngOTfNSw21ce_26N1EzfTAXwRQD9EP74HO0
 
Last edited by a moderator: