Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Maddie Stone
“Brainwashed” | Founder of , former science editor | Earth & environmental sciences PhD | Trekkie
19.611
Tweetovi
1.676
Pratim
17.837
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Maddie Stone 41 min
Odgovor korisniku/ci @eliowa @marynmck
This is true! And I never mind explaining if folks ask nice.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone proslijedio/la je tweet
Maddie Stone 6 h
Right now, hundreds of scientists are doing research on a ship frozen into the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The sun never rises, it's wickedly cold, and they are surrounded by polar bears. But science is happening. Also, I'm back in Earther this week 💜
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 5 h
What a completely predictable and preventable nightmare.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 6 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @KetanJ0 @amywestervelt i 6 ostali
Ughghg
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 6 h
Right now, hundreds of scientists are doing research on a ship frozen into the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The sun never rises, it's wickedly cold, and they are surrounded by polar bears. But science is happening. Also, I'm back in Earther this week 💜
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 6 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @amywestervelt @bcmerchant i 5 ostali
Worth noting that Google science news is often a garbage heap of conspiracy theories, too. Not so much climate denial but I frequently see stories on asteroids and volcanoes ending all life on earth, etc.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
That’s ok! Just trying to improve understandings all around, I know this is a controversial topic
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
I always appreciate scientists who volunteer their time, and thank them for doing so. Many don’t take your cynical view, though—I’ve spoken to many many scientists who have thanked me for the opportunity to communicate about an important topic with the public.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
LOL you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do, friend. I’m just explaining the rules.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
Veto power and input are fairly standard at places I’ve worked, yes
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JKaldy @badlin
I’m always happy to talk about it! (Clearly.) it’s an area rife with ideological disagreement
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
And scientists ~are~ like politicians in the sense that they (like all humans) prefer to shape the public narrative about themselves and their work.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
Review for accuracy is called fact checking and many science journalists do it very well. I haven’t had to issue a correction on a story in months and most of my stories are loaded with technical facts.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JKaldy @badlin
But the “most significant aspect of the work” is not an objective fact. Very often I’ll interview half a dozen experts about a study and ~each one~ has a different takeaway about what’s most significant or interesting. Which gets us back to editorial control over the story.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
Sorry you, had bad experiences, though. I know some fields have it worse than others.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Robotbeat
Yes I’m aware bad articles can reflect badly on scientists who participate. Journalism at large can’t compromise its ethics because of bad actors, though. Imagine if your funding agency was allowed editorial input on the conclusions of your research articles.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
This, for me, is the main point. Very few stories I write regurgitate one the scientist’s POV without any additional input, and the additional input often paints a different picture.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JKaldy @badlin
Or others in the field might be highly critical of their work and it’s the journalist’s job to present a balanced view. If the scientist whose work is being critiqued gets to read the whole thing before publication they might try to un-balance it.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JKaldy @badlin
Letting someone look over an entire draft allows them to see and impose opinions on the entire direction of the piece, not just facts. A scientist might not like a certain aspect of their work being played up, but it might be the part that’s most interesting to a general audience
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Maddie Stone 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JKaldy @badlin
The principle here is respecting the fact that the journalist has full editorial control over the story they write which is incompatible with letting sources review it. What if the story is critical of the scientist’s work? Science journalism isn’t science PR.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"