Blogging about bad journalism
As much as I think those headlines are ridiculous, I just wanted to point out the last one actually has a basis in reality, I read a similar story on New Scientist:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20896-glowing-transgenic-cats-could-boost-aids-research.html
Are these for real? They sound like they have been randomly generated using a Mail-Headline-App.
I get the impression that the Mail's headline writers were big fans of The Lost Room.."Could your bus ticket teleport people to a specific location?"
Well, I guess the Guardian didn't poise it as a question, just a statement... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/11/genetically-modified-glowing-cats
Where can we get glow in the dark cats? My HIV risk is pretty low, but if cuddling a glowing kitteh will get it lower then I want once.
I don't want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that (the usally excellent) Tabloid Watch should be a bit more selective about what it chooses to attack. These stories in the Mail are an excellent example of how the press is able popularise science - a hugely important job. And you haven't quoted the whole headline either.
@Ike"These stories in the Mail are an excellent example of how the press is able popularise science"Sorry, but these are pisspoor examples of how the press popularises science. Most Mail science stories are normally badly written, sensationalist and missing key points* as the examples elsewhere in this blog show, especially when dealing with what carcinogenic and what's not.*Just like the rest of their outpourings
Misconstruing science to the point of giving the general public a completely false impression of what science is, is not a hugely important job.
I'm reminded at this point of this : http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.