I've seen plenty of science reporters directly contradict what's spelled out in the study they are reporting on. Sadly the highlighted quote at the top wouldn't be enough to ensure accurate reporting or interpretation of science. This is why we 'solve cancer' multiple times every year. It would be awfully nice, however, if there were more institutions devoted to precise and accurate reporting on science, as my default behavior nowadays is to more or less ignore the reporting and go straight to the source. In many cases the abstract of the paper is enough to understand the real findings, but more information is available if I feel the desire to dig further.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2022
9 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
34795 readers
307 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I've seen this so many times. It's usually the fault of the journalist who either does not understand the subject, or has a narrative to spin.