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.'"

Welcome

[S.O.B. (136083)]

I for one welcome our incompetent journalist overlords.

Re:Welcome

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well sure, you read Slashdot, don't you? :)

Re:Welcome

[S.O.B. (136083)]

No, that would be our "dupe overlords".

Re:

[fm6 (162816)]

You better! If you don't, they will write you out of reality!

This debunking is the first I heard of this "news". I guess I don't follow enough blogs...

My favorite Stupid Journalist story, reported by Herb Caen, concerns a modern poet. A journalist asked him why his verses didn't rhyme. He responded that many great poets dispensed with rhyme, including Homer and Virgil. The journalist quoted him as saying that rhyme was invented by a poet named Homer Virgil!

Conspiracy

[Freeside1 (1140901)]

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.

Incompetence

[nonsequitor (893813)]

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.

Re:Incompetence

[Stanistani (808333)]

I had a brief stint as a journalist - I always repeated back to my sources what I understood them to mean.

They often corrected me.

When I did a feature on a person, even a critical piece, I would send a draft to them before I submitted the article - usually there were no corrections - but when there were - they were vital.

Re:Incompetence

[B3ryllium (571199)]

I see why your stint was short. You were a good journalist, rather than an idiotic sensationalist one ... there's just no market for that any more. :(

Re:No wonder

[Bombula (670389)]

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (imagine a journalist doing that...). This guy said he referred back to his sources for accuracy in data-collection, which is tantamount to accuracy in reporting. Yes, it's great if you can do this all during the interview, but going to press afterwards with reckless disregard for the facts is hardly "letting a source control the story." Moreover, the idea that the journalist 'controls' the story is asinine in itself. In the parent article about SETI, the journalist was obviously 'controlling' the story - thanks to his own moronic misunderstanding of the facts of the situation. I don't know about most readers here, but that's not my idea of quality journalism. Get the facts straight, understand what you're talking about, and fact-check your goddamn articles before you go to press. If that means clarifying a source's information after the interview, whether it's their quotations or the concepts behind them, then so be it: the telephone and wikipedia are your friends.

A good journalist reports the facts accurately and objectively, even if it means going back to get something you missed or muddied during the interview. And the only thing controlling the story should be the truth. If you believe anything else, you're nothing but a hack whose willing to peddle any old dogshit for a moment in the limelight - the world doesn't need any more of those kinds of people.

Next assignment

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

Stay tuned for this reporter's interview with a McDonald's manager. It turns out he actually invented cows!

Re:

[snl2587 (1177409)]

Given what they're passing off for meat on the McDonald's Value Menu these days, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of them created a nasty, cardboard-flavored version of a cow.

Re:Next assignment

[Pojut (1027544)]

When I was 16 (I'm 23 now) I did a one year stint in a McDonalds. I don't know if it's the same now as it was then, but when I was working there the boxes that the meat came in were all stamped USDA Grade A Beef. The problem is that for potential lawsuit reasons, McDonalds cooks all it's burgers to well done. When I worked there, for my dinner I would make one medium rare. This will sound crazy, but when they are cooked right (at least back then...again, don't know if this applies now) it made for one of the best burgers I've had anywhere.

The beef is actually very high quality...it just gets cooked into oblivion (and cooked very quickly, at that...from walk-in refrigerator to ready-for-burger in about a minute and a half...not the best of ways to cook meat if taste is of any concern.)

The trouble with Journalists...

[thewils (463314)]

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.

The original article

[hugecabbage (950972)]

Here's the cached article: Has E.T. Made A Call? [209.85.173.104] [Google]

Pay no attention to the sig

[techpawn (969834)]

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.

links to cached article

[The Bad Astronomer (563217)]

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.

Journalism

[doconnor (134648)]

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.

Re:Journalism

[The Bad Astronomer (563217)]

I agree. It's very easy now to find, for example, astronomy news on blogs where the author knows what they are talking about (cough cough). Universe Today [universetoday.com] is a great example, and there are many others. The mainstream media have shot themselves in the foot over the past few years; very few have any dedicated science reporters, but the public *likes* science stories. So folks turn to teh intertoobs, and I for one welcome our new public overlords.

Re:

[Zordak (123132)]

Fortunately, we are seeing the rise of blogs where there are many people who know what they are talking about.

Sweet! Can you point me to those? Most of what I see is Jane Doe posting the x^nth picture of her stupid, lazy cat curled up in a ball with a "cute" caption like "The REAL Boss Around Here!"

Re:Journalism

[Jherek Carnelian (831679)]

Sweet! Can you point me to those?

Here are some:

http://www.crypto.com/blog/ [crypto.com]
http://www.badscience.net/ [badscience.net]
http://www.schneier.com/blog/ [schneier.com]

wishing

[mugnyte (203225)]

  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.

Re:wishing

[southpolesammy (150094)]

So remember when your feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there intelligent life somewhere up in space,
Cause theres bugger all down here on Earth.

Not to worry...

[bobdotorg (598873)]

Should the reporter get fired, he has a great future as a Slashdot editor.

Re:

[ledow (319597)]

Ah, ha! We found you out, Mr Alien. No human being would use a word like recieval when they actually meant reception. Now take off that fake beard...

Re:Must be aliens

[geekoid (135745)]

"actual alien contact could spin it all out of control and everyone goes apeshit for a while"

no it wouldn't. Not at all, please stop spouting Hollywood nonsense.