I wish stories like this were a more straight forward counting of the interesting facts and relevant input from experts. I don't really need the origin story of the conference this finding was discussed at.
I utterly despise the current “long form” style where all long form stories start by talking about something old and unimportant.
Sure it’s a nice appetizer to whet the palette. But only if I already know I’m gonna read the whole thing! There’s too much long form for me to read. I want a tastier first bite to see if it’s worth my time.
I blame the New Yorker. Bastards.
A good news article should be written in order of priority. Each word, each sentence should be written in order of decreasing priority starting with the headline. "JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe" is a great headline, it encompasses the entire story. Especially at the beginning of the article, the purpose should be expand and clarify the most important pieces.
I really dislike the kind of journalism that goes into biography mode and starts off with an anecdote about Jane Einstein's childhood dog leaving the most relevant bits 2/3 the way through.
I'd like to be able to choose the level of detail I get from an article by being able to stop when I'm done.
I don't like having to dedicate several minutes to finding a piece of information that took several seconds to deliver. Much like the 10 minute youtube howto video hiding the five seconds of information I needed.
Well, yes, that's why I wrote my post.
> This kind of text is everywhere in science journalism.
Indeed.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
– Michael Crichton