Anonymous
6/10/2025, 12:31:23 PM No.16694107
Should you ever talk to a science journalist? I've been contacted to do so, and I honestly really don't want to, but I feel like my associates will start acting badly if I don't.
Replies:
Thread 16694107 - /sci/ [Archived: 1231 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 1:21:03 PM No.16694128
>>16694107 (OP)
Last article is an opinion piece by a libertarian woman. Does the concept of opinion pieces and allowing different viewpoints elude the people who make these images?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion
Last article is an opinion piece by a libertarian woman. Does the concept of opinion pieces and allowing different viewpoints elude the people who make these images?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/opinions/trump-budget-paid-leave-calder-opinion
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 2:33:40 PM No.16694159
>>16694107 (OP)
Sure, why not?
>>16694128
It's not a different viewpoint. I have no idea who this woman is but you can tell by a quick scroll through her twatter account that she's very much a Trump derangement victim, which is the same viewpoint also expressed by every other opinion piece curated by CNN.
Sure, why not?
>>16694128
It's not a different viewpoint. I have no idea who this woman is but you can tell by a quick scroll through her twatter account that she's very much a Trump derangement victim, which is the same viewpoint also expressed by every other opinion piece curated by CNN.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 2:54:00 PM No.16694164
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 3:08:18 PM No.16694171
>>16694164
Both sides of what? I'm not accusing her, herself, of having inconsistent libertarian principles, whatever that might mean to any faction of libertarianism at any point in history. Just of being Trump-deranged. I mean one of the first things in her timeline is an Aaron Rupar repost lol. You can't get much more deranged than that. The image criticizes corporate "journalism" for being political propaganda and the curation of that article at that time is a clear example.
Both sides of what? I'm not accusing her, herself, of having inconsistent libertarian principles, whatever that might mean to any faction of libertarianism at any point in history. Just of being Trump-deranged. I mean one of the first things in her timeline is an Aaron Rupar repost lol. You can't get much more deranged than that. The image criticizes corporate "journalism" for being political propaganda and the curation of that article at that time is a clear example.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 3:24:45 PM No.16694185
>>16694159
>Sure, why not?
I've already asked others and everyone I know to be reliably wrong has said to do it, so I'm not doing it. Everyone can deal with it.
>Sure, why not?
I've already asked others and everyone I know to be reliably wrong has said to do it, so I'm not doing it. Everyone can deal with it.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 3:33:47 PM No.16694198
>>16694185
What's it about? Worst thing that can happen is they get everything wrong and now you have a story to tell and laugh about, and you can send the article to your mom to print out and hang on the fridge and laugh about the other book club grannies.
What's it about? Worst thing that can happen is they get everything wrong and now you have a story to tell and laugh about, and you can send the article to your mom to print out and hang on the fridge and laugh about the other book club grannies.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 3:38:55 PM No.16694210
>>16694198
1: I don't like humans.
2: I like my privacy. That's why I do research and not bartending
3: Fuck journalists.
4: This entire process has made me realize I'm in a special position where I don't have to do anything I don't want to because I don't have the same restrictions as others. So the answer is no.
1: I don't like humans.
2: I like my privacy. That's why I do research and not bartending
3: Fuck journalists.
4: This entire process has made me realize I'm in a special position where I don't have to do anything I don't want to because I don't have the same restrictions as others. So the answer is no.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 3:42:42 PM No.16694215
>>16694210
Well if you already made up your mind, you don't like humans, and you like your privacy, why did you vent your private thoughts and personal situation on a board of humans in the form of a question?
Well if you already made up your mind, you don't like humans, and you like your privacy, why did you vent your private thoughts and personal situation on a board of humans in the form of a question?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:07:59 PM No.16694259
>>16694215
I was undecided until glowniggers chimed in and tried to shame me into cooperating with their pet journos. That made the decision for me.
I was undecided until glowniggers chimed in and tried to shame me into cooperating with their pet journos. That made the decision for me.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:31:10 PM No.16694277
>>16694259
>everyone I know to be reliably wrong has said
You know a lot of glowniggers and hang out with them and solicit their advice? This story is getting better all the time lol. Are you posting from a .gov IP?
>everyone I know to be reliably wrong has said
You know a lot of glowniggers and hang out with them and solicit their advice? This story is getting better all the time lol. Are you posting from a .gov IP?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:34:08 PM No.16694280
>>16694277
I don't have to hang out with them. I just know where to find them (here). And their opinion is not only obvious, it's pushy. That makes the decision easy. Not only that, I've learned from this experience to never entertain the thought again and actively pursue getting other scientists to do the same.
I don't have to hang out with them. I just know where to find them (here). And their opinion is not only obvious, it's pushy. That makes the decision easy. Not only that, I've learned from this experience to never entertain the thought again and actively pursue getting other scientists to do the same.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:40:03 PM No.16694283
>>16694280
Got it.
>find them (here)
So you're a glownigger yourself, makes sense.
>it's pushy
Yes, they certainly are, aren't they. *wink wink*
>actively pursue getting other scientists
So you're a pushy glownigger who is here to actively push your glowniggerism on to scientists. Well, joke's on you, there aren't any actual scientists on this board lol.
Got it.
>find them (here)
So you're a glownigger yourself, makes sense.
>it's pushy
Yes, they certainly are, aren't they. *wink wink*
>actively pursue getting other scientists
So you're a pushy glownigger who is here to actively push your glowniggerism on to scientists. Well, joke's on you, there aren't any actual scientists on this board lol.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:42:13 PM No.16694286
>>16694107 (OP) (OP) #
Depends on what they want to ask about. If they have questions about research or science issues, prepare 2-3 talking points and quotes they can slap into a short 500 word side article. If they want you to talk about political shit, Iād say pass
Depends on what they want to ask about. If they have questions about research or science issues, prepare 2-3 talking points and quotes they can slap into a short 500 word side article. If they want you to talk about political shit, Iād say pass
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:46:53 PM No.16694288
>>16694285
Even if you do that, they pretty much always copyedit at least one of the points so badly that it ends up saying the exact opposite of what you meant. Only talk to journalists if you know going in that whatever you say will be repackaged in some way that unintentionally or intentionally makes you look like an idiot.
Even if you do that, they pretty much always copyedit at least one of the points so badly that it ends up saying the exact opposite of what you meant. Only talk to journalists if you know going in that whatever you say will be repackaged in some way that unintentionally or intentionally makes you look like an idiot.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:54:45 PM No.16694297
>>16694107 (OP)
Never talk to journalists for any reason. Their goals are different from your own. There's very little to be gained from being interviewed by one and everything to lose. Sometimes they don't even ask questions about what they said they wanted to interview you about.
You might naively think that it's good publicity for your lab or even for your career but you're wrong. If it's something positive, it'll just be background noise for most people, which is why it's far more likely that the interview will be perverted into something bad. Don't let obsolete notions of journalists being the gatekeepers of fame mess with your dead. They're shipwreck victims looking for anyone to grasp onto to keep them from drowning. They have nothing of value to offer but plenty of pain to dish you.
You have been warned.
Never talk to journalists for any reason. Their goals are different from your own. There's very little to be gained from being interviewed by one and everything to lose. Sometimes they don't even ask questions about what they said they wanted to interview you about.
You might naively think that it's good publicity for your lab or even for your career but you're wrong. If it's something positive, it'll just be background noise for most people, which is why it's far more likely that the interview will be perverted into something bad. Don't let obsolete notions of journalists being the gatekeepers of fame mess with your dead. They're shipwreck victims looking for anyone to grasp onto to keep them from drowning. They have nothing of value to offer but plenty of pain to dish you.
You have been warned.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 4:58:02 PM No.16694305
>>16694286
What makes you think they'd be truthful about what they want to talk about? If it comes down to a "he said, she said" situation, they have the media megaphone, you do not. Who is going to win that battle?
What makes you think they'd be truthful about what they want to talk about? If it comes down to a "he said, she said" situation, they have the media megaphone, you do not. Who is going to win that battle?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 5:09:40 PM No.16694320
>>16694285
>If they have aquariums about research or science issues, prepare 2-3 talking points
What was this supposed to say?
>If they have aquariums about research or science issues, prepare 2-3 talking points
What was this supposed to say?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 5:25:59 PM No.16694339
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 5:58:16 PM No.16694360
>>16694339
>You can always refuse to talk to them, anon.
That's the topic at hand. Motive is the hidden question that must be answered.
>You can always refuse to talk to them, anon.
That's the topic at hand. Motive is the hidden question that must be answered.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 6:32:32 PM No.16694378
>>16694360
You just say "I'd prefer not to answer" or "I don't really have an opinion on that" or "I don't know". I've done this a few times, and my experience has been that, more often than not, they'll be fairly respectful. You're not a high-profile politician that they're trying to grill for a 'gotcha' quote, you're a student/professor/professional/etc. who they're interviewing for a little insight on a topic outside their expertise or (more often) because they want a local take on a tech or science story. If an interview experience goes well they know they've got a resource they can tap for future interviews, and if it goes poorly they lose a resource and potentially open themselves up to headaches like complaints, calls for retractions, or libel suits.
You just say "I'd prefer not to answer" or "I don't really have an opinion on that" or "I don't know". I've done this a few times, and my experience has been that, more often than not, they'll be fairly respectful. You're not a high-profile politician that they're trying to grill for a 'gotcha' quote, you're a student/professor/professional/etc. who they're interviewing for a little insight on a topic outside their expertise or (more often) because they want a local take on a tech or science story. If an interview experience goes well they know they've got a resource they can tap for future interviews, and if it goes poorly they lose a resource and potentially open themselves up to headaches like complaints, calls for retractions, or libel suits.