Pharyngula

Posted by: LtStorm | August 31, 2009 11:43 AM

Haha, I love the next on on scientific publishing.

At least they weren't considering something unscrupulous, such as publishing the same paper in different journals using each of their names as the first on it!

But that would be stupid. And might cause a grad student to hunt them down in a murderous rage after he realizes he has three references for the same paper he's read through now because the filter function in his reference database software doesn't catch such duplicates.

Oh, wait, scientists really do that.

*sharpens an axe*

Posted by: Dianne | August 31, 2009 11:52 AM

Hmm...would now be a bad time to mention that I'm working on a paper which basically says, "nah, nah, you're WRONG" to one particular reviewer of a paper that was published 3 years ago now?

Posted by: Dr. J | August 31, 2009 12:07 PM

Come on, cut the reporter a break, he's just trying to frame science in ways understandable to everyone. (no smiley!)

Posted by: LtStorm | August 31, 2009 12:14 PM

Speaking of amusing scientific reporting, anyone else see this story from a few days ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209726/Single-molecule-million-times-smaller-grain-sand-pictured-time.html

Scientists are IBM photograph molecule for the first time ever.

Crystallographers scratch their heads in confusion and then return to working on imaging molecules as they have for the past ninety years.

Posted by: Jason Dick | August 31, 2009 12:30 PM

Minor point, PZ, but that link for science publishing won't work for long. Here's the perma-link:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1624#comic

Posted by: JiminKy | August 31, 2009 12:54 PM

There's some justification for this, but as with a lot of jokes, the humor comes from oversimplification. (As you might guess, I'm a reporter.)

Yeah, we do get stuff wrong sometimes, but there are reasons.

One: On Monday we're writing about school district budgets, Tuesday about the latest research on commercial bat guano applications, Wednesday about marketing trends and Thursday about a local archaeological dig. At smaller publications, that versatility is required; jobs for people who report exclusively on science, much less one specific field, are very rare.

Two: On each of those subjects we're supposed to include enough information to satisfy the prickliest expert in the field, while also making it all clear to a mass of booger-eating readers.

Three: We may take an hour-long, highly technical interview with an excited (and sometimes inarticulate) researcher and have another hour to boil it down to 500 words. Then we pass it off to copy editors who know less than we do, and editors who don't even read the result before writing a headline. I've had a number of stories emerge with a headline that said the exact opposite of what the story said. I had no input on the headline, but got blamed for it nevertheless.

Enough griping. It's a fair criticism – sometimes. Just not all the time. Often enough, the writer's caught in the middle of a bad deal.

Posted by: What | August 31, 2009 1:53 PM

Even though reporters often get things bass ackwards when reporting upon matters of science you can't blame it all on them. My field of study is heaped in bullshit propagated by investigators in peer reviewed articles. Career advancement and money motivate the publication of all kinds of rubbish.

Posted by: Draken | August 31, 2009 3:11 PM

Someone pointed to a slightly more accurate version.

(via)

Posted by: Darren | August 31, 2009 5:27 PM

It would have been funnier if he just left it after the second panel. The others just killed the joke for me.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 31, 2009 6:23 PM

Whenever you have detailed knowledge of any field, you get to see it misrepresented in the press. It makes you wonder how reporters can go through life not ever having learned anything about anything.

The one time I was interviewed a newspaper article they misquoted me and totally misrepresented what I was saying - and this was essentially a puff human interest piece promoting a museum exhibit based on my research and collections. I can only imagine how badly you'd be misrepresented if the reporter DISLIKED you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 31, 2009 6:33 PM

When I was in government I became senior enough that reporters would sometimes interview me for stories. There was one particular reporter who misquoted me and misrepresented what I said several times. The last time he interviewed me, he put his tape recorder on my desk and turned it on. I then pulled out my own recorder, put it next to his, and turned it on.

"What's that for?" he asked.

"After your story is printed and my boss chews me out for making stupid statements that go against official policy, I want to show him that I didn't actually say the things you quote me as saying."

The interview was very short and the one time I was quoted in the story, the quote as attributed to "a senior Treasury official."

Posted by: MikeS29 | August 31, 2009 7:30 PM

@#11

Isn't it funny how we all oversimplified your profession and got it all wrong too? Ah, the irony!

Posted by: JiminKy | August 31, 2009 9:23 PM

@truthseeker: Perhaps, but who usually gets blamed for it? The reporter, just as waiters usually get blamed for any screw-up in a restaurant kitchen, because the reporter/waiter is the face (or name) the public sees.

I've made mistakes, of course, in 10 years of cranking out at least one story every day; but when I do, and realize it, I correct them. But every time some jackass realizes that he made himself sound like an idiot, there's no easier out than to say, "Uhhh, I didn't say that. The reporter misquoted me. Yeah, that's it."

Posted by: JiminKy | September 1, 2009 12:14 AM

@'Tis Himself: I've never done that to anyone. You may have had a bad experience, but I know of no reporter who would refuse to prove they got something right – and after a decade in the newspaper business, I know a lot of reporters.

I have, however, had a number of people claim I made up their stupid comments, and occasional outright lies, just to cover their own asses. The most recent, and perhaps the dumbest, was one loudmouthed dickweed who made the mistake of shouting his comment in front of 50 people. His denial didn't work that time. But without that crowd of witnesses, who would you believe?

Posted by: Ian Andreas Miller | September 1, 2009 6:51 AM

The punchline is great, but I would have followed the above two panels with something that parodies the misconception of how studies work, like this article:

Eggs Good For You This Week
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32318

Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2009 9:31 AM

It seems that everyone involved would be better served if the subjects of articles could proof the article before it went on to the editor. It wouldn't have to take up much time; the reporter could say "It's due at x time, I can email it to you in the window of y-z, and you have two hours to look at it and get any changes back to me". If the person cares, they will be waiting for it and will respond in the appropriate time frame. Reporter gets an extra polish on the paper, editor doesn't have to do as much work, subject has no cause to complain. Is there any reason this isn't feasible?

Posted by: JiminKy | September 1, 2009 11:16 AM

@Carlie: Unfortunately, there is. I wish it was that simple, but there's a slippery-slope problem: How much access do you give people you're writing about on any subject? If you do that for one researcher, then the next politician who wants to "go over your quotes and make sure I'm accurately portrayed" can say, "Well, you let Dr. Bob do it, so why not me? It's just 'cause you're out to get me, isn't it?" And that does happen, quite a lot. So media outlets have adopted a blanket policy of withholding all items until they're published.

That said, it's certainly a good idea for a reporter to call back and check specific quotes and facts. On a technical subject, that should be mandatory. But granting wholesale access, and authority to revise at will, makes news organizations into compliant secretaries. What if you've got a situation, sadly not unknown in modern science, of a researcher being accused of fudging data? If I'm reporting on that, I'm not letting the subject rewrite it his (or her) way.

Normally, reporting on research should be collaborative, not adversarial. But it's part of journalists' professional ethics (yes, we do have them; check out the SPJ Code) to treat each subject as impartially as possible. People who are on the wrong end of a negative report are going to cry persecution anyway, but we try to give those accusations less credibility by avoiding appearances of favoritism.

Posted by: JiminKy | September 1, 2009 12:01 PM

I'm certainly fine with fact-checking specific items and reading back quotes. I do that all the time. The whole situation has gotten more complicated with the rise of live commenting and blog links, turning what used to be a one-shot story that might draw one formal response into potentially eternal argument. This makes a lot of reporters even more defensive, because our ability to respond is directly tied to the courage of our editors. Some editors I have known are willing to throw longtime, trusted staff to the wolves at the drop of a hat – not because they really think the reporter got things wrong, but because defending that person would take away a few minutes of valuable drinking time.

Posted by: Courtney Franklin | September 1, 2009 8:13 PM

Sadly, it's true about all forms of journalism at the moment.