Generic science article

[sawyl]

Over at the Guardian, Martin Robbins has a note perfect parody of a light-weight piece of pointless science journalism, followed by a series of deadpan pastiches of CiF comments:

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

But Robbins' spoof echoes some of the serious points made by Ed Yong in a post that argues that while journalists may not have an obligation to a particular scientist or theory, they do have an obligation to truth:

A veteran science journalist recently wrote: "Reporters are messengers – their job is to tell, as accurately as they can, what has been said, with the benefit of such insight as their experience allows them to bring, not to second guess whether what is said is right". That’s rubbish. If you are not actually providing any analysis, if you’re not effectively “taking a side”, then you are just a messenger, a middleman, a megaphone with ears. If that’s your idea of journalism, then my RSS reader is a journalist.

Exactly.