Meta-textual analysis of mainstream science reporting


27 Responses to “Meta-textual analysis of mainstream science reporting”

  1. IWood says:

    This is the obvious comment about a post about a news website article about a scientific paper.

    • escowles says:

      This is the obvious comment about a post about a news website article about a scientific paper.

      And this is the snarky and self-righteous reply questioning your basic understanding of science, your lineage, and possibly your sexuality, depending on how loaded the initial topic was.

  2. Maggie Koerth-Baker says:

    This is an ideologically driven rant, based on offense inferred from the outcome of this one study being written about on a news website.

    I can only assume that the author of this article agrees with the people I consider to be evil.

  3. Astragali says:

    This particular comment points out that the research heralds the inevitable takeover of the planet by Skynet.

  4. Ooble says:

    Click the “Unrelated story from 2007 matched by keyword analysis.” under “Related Links”. Do it.

  5. Louis A. says:

    This is nothing new. See the work of Charles Bazerman, Thomas Kuhn, and Karl Popper.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is the “christ what an asshole” post.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The article he is referencing is just particularly bad. While science journalism is often lacking, this is coming from a particularly low point.

    I mean, where’s the nutgraf? Use of “scientists say” rather than “[specific scientist name/title] said” is not okay. Using vague phrases like “some believe” is unacceptable by the standards of most editors. Even the basic structure is awkward.

    captcha: duencee reasons

  8. Anonymous says:

    An ideal post to read while listening to Title of the Song.

  9. carborundum says:

    Here the obligatory welcoming of new overlords, as created by or alluded to in this new research.

  10. Anonymous says:

    This is an extremely long post where I go off on a tangent that no one will read completely. Instead, those who try to read it will wonder why they read comment sections of websites.

    At this point I am making a long-winded explanation of how this vaguely relates to a personal experience. I will also generically blame some political group or person such as Obama, Republicans, or “big” oil/government/media/pharma/et al. After all, this vaguely related incident clearly shows that I am an expert on the subject.

  11. Sparrow says:

    This post makes a generic comment about how useful or insightful the article is, followed by a borked link back to a completely unrelated commercial site.

    [a href=]Just look at it![/a]

  12. Zadaz says:

    It’s also important to note that the article includes a photo of a pirate triceratops humping a galaxy.

    This is more or less why I don’t read/watch/listen to a lot of news any more. My brain transliterates most articles into this kind of formula.

  13. Quiet Wyatt says:

    this is teh marginally coherent and poorly speled and grammarized post by someone who didn’t RTFA but noneteheless feels qualified and compelled to bring religion and/or Hitler into the thread. also while gratuitously insulting all you stupid fuckwits in your parents basements who dont agree with me.

  14. Doug Clow says:

    This comment is not only far too late for the main moment of interest of the community, it mostly exists as a just-allowable-by-the-moderation-policy semi-advert for its author’s own blog post about a news website about a scientific paper, and attempts to defuse potential charges of shameless self-promotion with a combination of self-deprecation, self-reference, and tiresomely long and convoluted sentence structure.

  15. Kimmo says:

    This reply conveys the sentiments of this respondent regarding the contents of the linked article.

    : D

  16. ryanrafferty says:

    Great article… Most science reporting is awful and often (but, not always) does a disservice to the work or thought behind the research. Hopefully is little piece of satire is able to incite some journalistic change..

  17. Anonymous says:

    This post complains about the choice of typeface in the linked article.

  18. edthehippie says:

    i feel uncommonly compelled to add unicorns , kittehs , and won’t SOMEone Please think about the un-conceived children ? to this collection of colloquial comments . also , daz studio

  19. Anonymous says:

    I just wish “journalists” would provide a link to the paper they are citing, or hell even the name of the paper and journal would be nice. It would be helpful for those of us who are neither illiterate nor innumerate.

    It would also be nice if “journalists” linked to the raw press releases when regurgitating “news”. We can then diff the outputs to detect actual thought.

  20. JuanTwoThree says:

    This comment has been deleted

  21. Rich Keller says:

    This is the post containing an adorably pertinent xkcd strip.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Ths s th dsmvwld rply t Qt Wytt’s pst frm smn wh sms cmplld t s rcl slrs whn rfrrrng t nyn h dsgrs wth.

  23. Jake0748 says:

    This is the comment mentioning how hilarious the author of this comment found the previous comments.

  24. Quothz says:

    This is the comment that repeats a point raised earlier without new insight because the author has a strong opinion but can’t be bothered to read others’.

Leave a Reply