At this point, I'll openly admit it. I despise these types of robotic university press releases, and I fucking despise the patterns of reaction these types of releases are designed to generate. Where is the questioning that's fundamental to learning? Where is the interaction with the audience? Where is the feedback? How the hell am I supposed to wade through this bullshit?

A sentence like this:

> For example, the “brainy mice” showed a better ability than ordinary mice to recognise another mouse that they had been introduced to the day before.

Who is the brainy mouse? Why is he meeting this other mouse? Are they meeting in a bar? At Dolores Park? Are they fighting? Are they being given a standardized state administered quiz? Can I see a picture of this Morris maze?

How am I even supposed to unpack this and why would I even care? Science communication is supposed to be a two-way street, not an unexpectant ejaculation of "data" for someone else to "comprehend", "digest", "understand". Show me what's cool about this. Show the process, the failures, the papertrail, that would be cool. The prestige of the journal, the authors multitude of titles or affiliations, and some generic stock imagery is not cool.

And for god sake, at least make the primary source accessible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model#Defi...

[2] I'm intimate to this problem because we've created a robotic press release generator for Experiment's users. PRs serve a purpose, which is not public outreach, it's a journalist to journalist protocol.

[3] trying to solve this problem of science communication for funders - http://experiment.com/vanek