"We decided we're not going with a leader this time; you're going to have to argue with us on the facts."
Right, Ann. That's what happened. The Republican party threw the election in an orchestrated decision not to have a leader.
Got it.
My cousin went to a wedding and sat behind her in the church. He told me he kept hoping she would spontaneously combust, but sadly that never came to fruition.
Well done calling the media on their misinterpretations, Marcus. I work in medical research and I absolutely cringe everytime one of our studies gets press, because they always spin it as some sort of miracle breakthrough. Sadly, this results in desperate patients with unrealistic expectations ringing me for access to our latest "fix" for their problems. Explaining that it was just the media getting their hopes up and I can't really help them is the worst part of my job, hands down.
@cavegirl: I understand that Jezebel is a blog and fisks things, but I've often seen studies misrepresented here. Then, explained better in the comments by stat-happy Jezzies. They should get someone who really understands stats and likes dissecting this stuff on staff.
I love Jezebel! But it's a big Jezebel pet peeve of mine!
Like the "Why Don't White People Want to Read About Michelle Obama?" article, when the statistics didn't quite say that.
Or quoting Dan Savage as saying women are more likely to be bisexual, when really he cited a study that shows women's sexuality tends to be more fluid (as in, women are more likely to change their self-identified label than men).
Articles here are often really thought-provoking and slice through the b.s., but I feel like there's a blind spot when it comes to scientific studies. Or maybe the sensationalist headline just gets more pageviews...
Holy crap, this is JUST the sort of argument I'm having at the moment, regarding the anti-vax movement and their mis-representation of scientific data, and what gets reported.
I would dearly like to pinpoint the moment in time when journos thought it was a-ok to slant, and punch them in the nuts. Thanks for fcuking with our ability to educate the populace properly, corn holes.
Angry much? Yeah...
Science writing drives me mad. I really do not understand why news outlet don't require their science writers understand basic scientific methods. Sometimes the issue is picking the sexists elements of a study, but a lot of the time I don't think the journalist even understands the study. In my experience, I think it takes about a year of regularly reading journal articles for people to understand them, lots of bright people struggle with it, its like learning a new language.
While I sometimes get a little annoyed when Jez doesn't link to the original study (often they are subscribers only, but about half the time I can pull up the full text with a google search), journalists from major news outlets have no excuse, they have access to the originals!
What's particularly funny about this one is it seems like they skipped the most interesting fact- it was the attractive but not crazy gorgeous women who had the most kids.
@clevernamehere: Many of the social science articles I see are written as if the reporter cobbled it together from the first couple of sentences of the abstract and their own feeble assumptions about the topic at hand. They don't even try. It's sad, and gives people a poor impression of scientific research.
@Gavagirl: I wouldn't even mind if it was just the abstract, more than once I've added citations to a paper for school without reading the whole article. Its that they don't seem to understand the abstract.
@clevernamehere: You are correct, I ought to have said "a piss-poor understanding of the first couple of sentences of the abstract, and of basics of inductive reasoning."
I want to conduct a study about how media outlets tend to distort scientific studies, but then that study would get distorted as well.
It's the 21st. century scientist's paradox.
So you're saying that media outlets skimmed a scientific report, saw something worthy of a headline, took soundbites from the report to create an article and meet certain criteria to create some hype, and in the process totally misrepresented the facts and did the original work a disservice?
How dare you!
Also, exactly how this shit works, says the resentful media employee.
@Highsmith: That's rather insulting to the transgender community, don't you think? There's at least 10 other ways to insult her without calling her a dude.
@MsFeasance: Right. It's sexist (because women we don't like shouldn't be judged on their appearance any more than women we do like) AND transphobic (because trans-ness =/= ugliness). It's also the easiest, cheapest shot there is.
Tell me why she's a horrible human being, and I'm right there with you. Throw out some transmisogynist "iz that a gurl or a dude hur hur" slur and we're no longer on the same side.
@Highsmith: What?! No, I didn't approve this, not at all! I approved greeneyedfem's well put response down there to another response. Damned threading.
@VirginiaDentata: Ooops. Lol. It was more of a tongue in cheek kind of comment. I've never met a tranny who was as hideous (in every possible way) as Coulter is. My apolgies, ladies. When I call someone ugly, it usually refers to their personality. I believe what you are often shows on your face.
@Highsmith: Have you ever met a "tranny" who told you that non-trans folks using the word "tranny" is all kinds of problematic? Or that it can be highly triggering for trans women who have been the target of hate speech and violence? [www.bilerico.com] [www.pamshouseblend.com]
Again, I'm right there with you in regards to Ms. Coulter -- she is so vile I'm ashamed we belong to the same species. But please be aware that the language you use to describe her ugliness contributes to a culture that makes life a lot harder for trans and gender-variant people.
Oh you lucky researchers, holed up in your labs, or wherever you go. Can I please go back to a time when I didn't know who Ann Coulter is? (Or a time when I could naively call her a "lady"?)
I find it odd that no one is considering the context of WHERE this question was asked...a nation wherein women are second-class. I think after witnessing the mass rape and abuse of women in the Congo, I can imagine she would be a little miffed at misogyny being thrown her way.
And um, did hell freeze over because I kinda agree with Ann...
@CurtCole: Please do not insult cats by comparing Coulter to them. Cats are wonderful animals once worshiped.
Coulter is only worshiped by republican boys with blue balls.
10/01/09
Right, Ann. That's what happened. The Republican party threw the election in an orchestrated decision not to have a leader.
Got it.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
I love Jezebel! But it's a big Jezebel pet peeve of mine!
Like the "Why Don't White People Want to Read About Michelle Obama?" article, when the statistics didn't quite say that.
Or quoting Dan Savage as saying women are more likely to be bisexual, when really he cited a study that shows women's sexuality tends to be more fluid (as in, women are more likely to change their self-identified label than men).
Articles here are often really thought-provoking and slice through the b.s., but I feel like there's a blind spot when it comes to scientific studies. Or maybe the sensationalist headline just gets more pageviews...
08/12/09
I would dearly like to pinpoint the moment in time when journos thought it was a-ok to slant, and punch them in the nuts. Thanks for fcuking with our ability to educate the populace properly, corn holes.
Angry much? Yeah...
08/12/09
While I sometimes get a little annoyed when Jez doesn't link to the original study (often they are subscribers only, but about half the time I can pull up the full text with a google search), journalists from major news outlets have no excuse, they have access to the originals!
What's particularly funny about this one is it seems like they skipped the most interesting fact- it was the attractive but not crazy gorgeous women who had the most kids.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
It's the 21st. century scientist's paradox.
08/12/09
How dare you!
Also, exactly how this shit works, says the resentful media employee.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
Tell me why she's a horrible human being, and I'm right there with you. Throw out some transmisogynist "iz that a gurl or a dude hur hur" slur and we're no longer on the same side.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
[www.bilerico.com]
[www.pamshouseblend.com]
Again, I'm right there with you in regards to Ms. Coulter -- she is so vile I'm ashamed we belong to the same species. But please be aware that the language you use to describe her ugliness contributes to a culture that makes life a lot harder for trans and gender-variant people.
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
And um, did hell freeze over because I kinda agree with Ann...
08/12/09
Here it comes!
08/12/09
Coulter is only worshiped by republican boys with blue balls.
08/12/09
@greengrey: True.