this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
940 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

19858 readers
2846 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don't.

AI didn't invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.

[–] ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Even journalists don't

Not sure what point your making here, I wouldn't expect most journalists to be great at reading the details of papers like this...

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Research and fact checking is what separates journalists from hacks.
"Journalist" implies factual information, not science fiction. If someone writes a "news" story about the magic land of Xanth because they can't tell the difference between a Piers Anthony novel and a scientific study it's not Piers Anthony's fault for being too "tricky".

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don't vet their sources, their work is without merit.

Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.

If they can't do that, then there's no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.