Bad science reporting

[sarahmichigan]

Headlines like this one really piss me off. They just give creationists and the like ammunition when editors write sensationalist headlines like "New Fossil Ape May Shatter Human Evolution Theory!"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070822-fossil-ape.html

What the new discovery does is revise part of the timeline of human evolution, but it's not like the new discovery invalidates human evolution theory as a whole or anything. What it actually does is provide another missing link that changes the timeline of where they thought pre-humans split off from other primates. But that doesn't make a very sensational headline.

Shame on Nat'l Geographic, which I usually enjoy.

Comments

[leighton.livejournal.com]

It's not about science. It's about new subscriptions generated through controversy.

If they can find the one "scientist" who thinks smoking makes you live to 200, they'll shure as hell put him on a pedestal to garner just interest.

Reason sacrificed for accountin' = 'merican.

[mcniadh.livejournal.com]

New Fossil Ape May Add Excitement To Current Boring State Of Human Evolution Theory!

[mcniadh.livejournal.com]

That is an unfortunate headline. The new discovery is certainly a revision instead of invalidation. Here's something I wrote a while ago in response to another article along similar lines.

http://mcniadh.livejournal.com/102309.html

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

nice post.

[purple-marf.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, I guess they pissed off a few people with the sensationalistic crap, new headline and comment:

Editor's note: The original headline for this story—"New Fossil Ape May Shatter Human Evolution Theory"—has been changed to accurately reflect the implications of the discovery.

May your faith be restored. :)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

That's all kinds of awesome! I bet they got a lot of complaints along the same line as mine...