Slashdot Mirror
News Of SETI Signal Just Bad Reporting
The Bad Astronomer writes "Rumors have been flying in recent days that the SETI project has received a strong signal from space, indicating the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Bad Astronomy breaks down the origins of this (false) claim, which mostly amounts to a heaping helping of shoddy journalism. 'I just talked to Dan Wertheimer, the astronomer quoted in the article. He told me that the original interview was about sending signals into space (so-called active SETI) as opposed to just listening for aliens. After the interview, he talked to the reporter about some of the astronomy he does, including looking at what are called radio transients: bursts of radio waves that are seen once and never repeat. These may come from one-off events like colliding neutron stars, exploding stars, and so on. Somehow, in the article the reporter mixed up the observation of the transient signals with detecting a signal from E.T.'"
Only the true messiah would deny his divinity.
Ergo...I think this denial is a sure sign that SETI has found something.
I for one welcome our incompetent journalist overlords.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
It really was alien, but the aliens are already here, and they're covering it up so they can terraform our planet with global warming.
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
That saying proves itself everyday. I know most people don't understand science, but if you are reporting on it at least pay attention long enough to accurately report what you were told by someone who does understand. Why do people think it's ok to be proud of their ignorance? Its one thing to own your weaknesses having tried and failed, but it seems like most non-technical people stopped trying.
Stay tuned for this reporter's interview with a McDonald's manager. It turns out he actually invented cows!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Is that they aren't likely to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
It also pisses me off greatly when newsreaders append their own opinion to the end of a news story. You are a newsreader dammit. Just supply the facts and let people make up their own mind - that is if it is possible for you to supply the facts without your personal bias in the first place.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Here's the cached article: Has E.T. Made A Call? [Google]
oO0Oo
Mr. Harley: Your impatience is quite understandable.
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry... I wish it were otherwise.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
At the bottom of the blog post I put a link to the cached article, and I took a snapshot of it which is on my Flickr account. It's all linked on the blog.
*** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
The problem with journalism is that journalists tend to report on so many different topics, they often don't really understand them. It's like if a programmer was given a totally different assignment every day. Even the best one couldn't do a good job because it would take weeks for them to understand how things work and all the terminology.
Ideally, instead of relatively few full time journalists, they should have many part time journalists who work full time in the industry they report on. The quality of the writing might suffer a bit, but it would be far more accurate.
Fortunately, we are seeing the rise of blogs where there are many people who know what they are talking about.
it wouldn't surprise me if it said that at the time of the recieval, the equipment was "pointed at Uranus"
Particles, stuff that matters.
The web, as a reflection of the population as a whole, is chock full of wishful thinking about fantasies. The youtubes seemed to be clogged with "evidence" of UFOs, angels, monsters, ghosts, etc.
Frankly, it's a little disappointing to see a lack of critical thinking. I'm all for discovering amazing new things, in any topic. But defending the stories wholesale under the guise of "how can you deny all the evidence?" kinda paints a picture of cultist mentality. Somewhat scary and journalists are not immune. They just want something that sounds like a "scoop" and grab the eyeballs (and sell the ads).
SETI is a worthwhile endeavor to me, but of course they'd hold a press conference if something big didn't filter away.
Should the reporter get fired, he has a great future as a Slashdot editor.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
It did come from a system that went Nova though. Signal, "What's up with the sun? Oh shiiiitttttt........".
Is that you know the reporter will keep his job. If you're dumb enough to misinterpret by that degree the words that someone spoke to you, then you should have no job reporting on anything.
The article actually contained the sentence "Across the globe, researchers searching for signs of life in space were abuzz this week with word that a mystery signal has been picked up by a giant radio-telescope in Puerto Rico."
This was not just a science neophyte failing to understand big sciency words, this was a reporter blatantly making shit up.
"Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life" [vhemt.org]
reporters should be made accountable for their actions, so often, when disscussing a particular scientific subject, reporters discuss the mainstream view and for good measure bring in this bearded nutcase to discuss his highly controversial but completely improbable take on the situation. To the layman (or woman), this would appear the such a view point is equally as valid as the mainstream view. Take for example global warming, a touchy subject at the best of times. For many years, the vast majority of the scientific community have agreed with the observations and conclusions with respect to the increasing temperatures and our CO2 pollution. However, news reporters always, and I mean always, included a reference to the lone few individuals who thought otherwise. This might be down to journalistic traditions which seek to examine all view points but when it comes to accurately portraying the true state of the science, it is grossly distorted.
prepare the survey weasels.
This is sometimes extremely difficult because when you are a journalist, if you make mistakes, they end up in print for everyone to see, with your name attached. But it's better to make mistakes, and correct them in humility, than to let your source write your story for you.
I've worked as a journalist for nearly seven years, and I've made some doozie mistakes, and corrected them. But I have never let a source control my story. And you know what? I've never had one refuse to be interviewed again, even if the story was critical of them. The most I will do is read back their quotes to them, and tell them in what light I am presenting them. But giving them editorial control over your story is a bad idea.
One last thing - the SETI reporter made a big, stupid mistake. It's a good thing the summaries around here are always so accurate, isn't it?
What you get with that scenario is news written by hobbyists, which is not necessarily bad, but they are only writing about what they find interesting. Which explains why Wikipedia has more information about He-Man and the Masters of the Universe than string theory.
And besides, the pay in journalism is shitty enough now, you're not going to get very skilled writers/researchers/thinkers for part-time wages. Unless you outsource reporting to India, which has already been done (http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story3306.shtml)
But people want news now, they want it accurate, and they want it free. Just remember you get what you pay for.