Headlines that say the exact opposite of what the article ends up
maintaining drive me crazy, Ben Goldacre (Bad Science) has some good
information on what papers can get away with (far too much
apparently). Daily Mail again too (what a surprise)
http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/
Harriet
On 24 November 2010 14:38, James Pavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I’ve been pointed to the following article in the Daily Mail, not my regular
> port of call for info on climate change I must admit…
>
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332347/Influential-climate-change-report-copied-Wikipedia.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
>
>
>
> What is most interesting about this article is the response of the
> commentators at the bottom of the page – especially the highest rated.
> Commentators have missed the entire story and seem to be reacting on a
> headline – which is a shame because the story is an important one. I wonder
> what will happen if this discrepancy is pointed out to them? Do they go
> deeper into denial?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> James Pavitt
>
> Transition Stratford
>
>
>
>
|