More to come, but...

[chuckro]

I figured some people on my friends list would appreciate today's SMBC, which is about science reporting.

Comments

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

That's about right, though it still portrays the scientist as more honest than they usually are (depending on the field).

[beastin.livejournal.com]

I liked it.

In my experience, it's basically impossible to talk to most science journalists without getting a ridiculously hyped article out. Any article that wasn't sent back to the researcher for checking (and frequently they aren't) is probably wrong. (Though John Fleck at the Albuquerque Journal did a good job. Aside from perhaps the title.)

Edgehopper, there are some scientists who over-hype their work, and you're more likely to hear about them because hype makes for interesting news, but, in my experience, most scientists really do want to be represented accurately. Having your name attached to a bunch of nonsense does not generally help your career. (And, personally, I find it highly embarrassing.) To a fair degree, what matters in science is what the other scientists think of your work, and they are rarely impressed by ridiculous newspaper articles.