That is why I said "popular scientific reporting" and "science journalism." Most of the places that people read about these things is not going to be in a scientific journal; it's going to be informational entertainment, run by a business.
My beef is that I think they're doing a really bad job of informing, and that lack of information is what makes these articles really bad as entertainment: no one is really entertained by being informed that it will take $35 million to save tigers, or cure cancer; they just feel overwhelmed by numbers. I am not sure what purpose such articles serve as either information or entertainment, and I am pretty sure that running articles without either when you're in the business of providing both is bad for business.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
19/9/10 17:58 (UTC)My beef is that I think they're doing a really bad job of informing, and that lack of information is what makes these articles really bad as entertainment: no one is really entertained by being informed that it will take $35 million to save tigers, or cure cancer; they just feel overwhelmed by numbers. I am not sure what purpose such articles serve as either information or entertainment, and I am pretty sure that running articles without either when you're in the business of providing both is bad for business.