Originally posted by Banshee
I've clarified the main story a bit, since it seems people are still misinterpreting things.
Well, Banshee, the problem isn't the story.
The problem is the headline, as a number of posters have discussed, which reads:
NEWS: Meteorite reported hitting near Olympia Wash is a hoax
The problem with this unfortunate choice of wording is
that if meteorites are found, which,
judging by various sources, appears will happen,
that _any_ actual meteorite finds resultant from this event will
have been pre-emptively declared to be hoaxes.
The core phrase (Subject+Predicate) says it all:
Meteorite... ...is a hoax
Who are we to believe here?
- From Associated Press:
HeraldNet: Meteor may have hit near Snohomish
SEATTLE - A meteor that lighted Western Washington's night sky early Thursday may have landed near Snohomish, a University of Washington scientist
The damage is, in any case, already beyond repair.
When one follows a headline in a credible publication,
expectations should be that the headline reflects accurately the content.
Publications that bait readers with misleading headlines become notorious.
This story is about a hoax attempt on the AP network.
The Subject of the headline might be 'Hoax' or 'Hoaxster'
or any number of permutations of the storyline.
If you wanted to highlight the rash of coming hoaxes,
the subject still remains hoaxes or hoaxers or gullible media types,
unless the story is about the props and methodology of hoaxes
The story is _not_ about a meteorite.
Those respected folk out there searching for the remnants of this event
do not need to be painted as being parties to a hoax,
which is the net effect of the headline.
Those of us involved in the sciences take a dim view of media which,
by implication or imputation, associates science and its pursuit as hoax.
Could we extrapolate from this that urgent priorities exist
using headlines to guide readership thinking toward certain biases?
To color discussion and examination of anomalous events as
most probable hoaxes, to color researchers as being gullible hoaxed?
No, surely not... ...or, perhaps, hopefully not?