Who hates popular science reporting?

I could see, therefore, which aspects of the projects these articles were reporting and, far more interestingly, which they were leaving out. In the process, I reached a number of conclusions about the unwritten rules which seem to dictate the way such articles are written. Handily, I’ve summarised them here:

* Patronise your reading audience by assuming that none of them will be interested in anything more than a cursory summary of the scientific concepts being discussed. Focus instead on something frivolous or irrelevant, even if it has only a tenuous link to the subject matter.
* Rather than treating the project or endeavour as a collaborative effort, make the focus of the article an obsequious mini-biography of the project leader, usually culled from a personal interview. If at all possible, make out that he is uniquely brilliant in his chosen field.
* Describe the possible outcomes of the project in the rosiest of terms and always be optimistic when making claims about the effects of new technology on standards of living.
* Never criticise or seriously question the scientists or their goals.

Source

I've always known that:

* Scientists are more interested in job security than actually getting things done. (Elementary axiom of human nature)
* Relevant data is hidden or abstracted from the reader, possibly giving the reader a false picture.
* Topics of practical relevance are rarely reported.

I generally ignore popular science reportings or merely give them a cursory look. Never, never take them seriously. Delve into the nitty gritty data yourselves. Do experiments in real life and on the computer.

Popular Science / Popular Mechanics are both nothing more than TPTB propaganda rags...

They consistently use manufactured data and straw man arguments to attempt to strike down common sense with "facts" that drive their own agenda...

Well, to be fair to them (the scientists) they are up against the establishment, if they publicy think out side the box, the are at risk of ridicule, job loss... Or worse, depending on subject matter.

Some are obviously bought and owned by the establishment to feed us what they want to feed us (look at the climate change emails scandal), however, I think if they chose to become a scientist they originally wanted to help humanity...

Originally posted by Sinny
Well, to be fair to them (the scientists) they are up against the establishment, if they publicy think out side the box, the are at risk of ridicule, job loss... Or worse, depending on subject matter.

Some are obviously bought and owned by the establishment to feed us what they want to feed us (look at the climate change emails scandal), however, I think if they chose to become a scientist they originally wanted to help humanity...

Kind of like doctors that "want to heal the world" only to get caught up in the cycle of "make your patients sick so that you can sell them pills that will also make them sick so that you can sell them other pills that will cure the side effects of those pills but cause others"...

Or maybe dentists that want to "fix teeth" but perpetuate the fluoride myths because they don't want to go up against the ADA...

No matter how you slice it... the road to hell was paved with the best of intentions... if you are knowingly doing wrong just so you can fly under the radar and make a buck you are a coward and a fraud...

Maybe, just maybe a science reporter explaining science in simple ways to a layman gives the layman some insight into the extremely interesting world of science, and how wonderful science as a career can be. But looking at the general ignorance (or is it hatred) based on ignorance, I fear for the future of the world.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
Maybe, just maybe a science reporter explaining science in simple ways to a layman gives the layman some insight into the extremely interesting world of science, and how wonderful science as a career can be. But looking at the general ignorance (or is it hatred) based on ignorance, I fear for the future of the world.

Explaining science and engineering in a manner that the "layman" can understand has nothing to do with blatantly ignoring physics, chemistry, biology, technology, etc., in an attempt to manipulate the "layman" and have him utter nonsense to serve an agenda that benefits the few...

I think the main problem is that most science writers are tasked with having to make these discoveries sound interesting with major implications in the real-world, when it really is an obscure discovery in a mundane topic that will only really be a benefit to a few theorists working in related fields.

A prime and recent example is the Higgs Boson. You'll see articles that link it to inter-dimensional travel, time travel, and worm-holes, while in peer-reviewed national journals that the findings have been posted in show nothing of the sort.

I'm all for popularizing science to the general public, but there should be a limit to the exaggerations of these tabloid writers as this is essentially misleading people who are not knowledgeable on the subject.