Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackfrodo | Hacker News Reader

Is this a reasonable thing to ask of journalists? I can't imagine a reporter telling their editor, "Yes, this team tells us with confidence that their findings have confirmed a huge story, but I disagree with their interpretation of the data, so I don't think we should run it." A reporter shouldn't be embarrassed that a team of scientists lied to them. Obviously the publications should retract/update these stories, but journalists, even ones with science backgrounds just aren't equipped and trained to be able to independently verify every claim they report on.

View on HN

A journalist should always be embarrassed when they publish some bullshit because a source lied to them. Why should science reporting be any different?

Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases.

It depends on the level of deceit, and who the source was. And we all have good reason to be annoyed if the deceitful source was the team performing the investigation.

> Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases.

This implies a false dichotomy. Many journalists know a lot about the matters they cover, but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field.

Science reporters should be just as skeptical of their sources as any other reporters. Especially where money, power or honors are involved.

The fact that most reporting on BICEP2 didn't even mention the politics behind it and the competition with the Planck experiment tells you a lot about the quality of coverage.

I think it is quite clear that the original reporting of BICEP2 was over the top, and that talking with some of the group's competitors would have pointed to problems in the experiment and analysis.

The original reporting sounded to me more like PR than journalism.

Even pointing out the old joke that 5 sigma discoveries tend to be wrong half the time would have been helpful.

> but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field.

And they should learn their lesson, and do better the next time. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen (with a few notable exceptions).

The best science reporters earn their keep by balancing "wow!" and "really?" at moments like this. Sometimes it's a matter of spotting an outright hoax (i.e. Piltdown Man fossils in the 1920s.)

Other times, what's at stake is an overly decisive attempt to interpret exciting data that might not be so exciting after all. The cold-fusion "discoveries" of 1989 fall into that camp, along with this gravitational-wave claim.

It's hard for journalists to referee everything in the first few hours. But by talking to other experts in the field, and by being willing to comb through the methodology underlying the claims, it's possible to get a sense within a few days (weeks?) of what's holding together very, very well, and what's starting to seem a little shaky. There's nothing wrong -- and a lot right -- with writing post-announcement articles that acknowledge such uncertainties.

It’s not hard for a journalist to pick up their phone and get some independent scientist with knowledge in the field say what they think about the findings. And then not hide the quote about inconclusive data and looking forward to further confirmation in the last paragraph of the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com