PF'ers Against Bad Science In Journalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theme of lazy journalism, particularly how reputable news sources misrepresent scientific concepts, leading to public misinformation and fear. Participants share examples of articles that fail to accurately convey scientific facts, such as conflating radioactive materials with nuclear weapons capabilities, which can create unnecessary panic among readers. There is criticism of the lack of rigorous research and fact-checking by journalists, as well as the tendency to use ambiguous metaphors and sensational language that misleads the audience. The conversation also touches on broader issues of journalistic integrity, the challenges of reporting on science without a strong background in the field, and the implications of such reporting on public understanding of critical issues like climate change and health risks. Overall, the thread highlights the importance of accurate science communication and the detrimental effects of sensationalism in the media.
  • #51
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19094136/?GT1=10056

Not too egregious, but "prism of light"?

Followed hard upon by this over-condensation:
Because light is "redshifted" to longer wavelengths as an
object moves away from an observer, the higher the redshift,
the further away the object is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
BTW, in case people haven't notice this, Bob Crease has been collecting all of these "Science Bloopers" in the media and various entertainment sources. His Part II of Science Bloopers has just appeared.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/6/3/1

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Why do so many people hate science?
Replies
28
Views
11K
Intro Physics Bad pop science books ("Galileo's Finger") vs. good?
Replies
8
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top