Abysmal BBC science article

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by leighonigar, Feb 25, 2009.

  1. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    May 5, 2007
    Look at this, LOOK AT THIS!


    "A fossil fish from Australia was one of the earliest known vertebrates to reproduce sexually, a study suggests."

    Ok, interesting I think... interesting... though, I am wondering why I was not aware of this long early vertebrate asexual lineage... read on...


    "The fossil suggests sexual reproduction - the fertilisation of eggs inside the female's body - evolved sooner than previously thought."

    Nightmare. That's not what sexual reproduction is at all, perhaps it's colloquially what we'd call "sex" but its not a definition of sexual reproduction. BBC editorial standards are so awful in science. I did see them call a fungus a "plant" at one point. Clearly lacking a biologist or someone with a bit of education.

    Perhaps a few of us could use the feedback page http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm to get this awful atrocity of science journalism removed before too many people read it?

    *minor rant over*
  2. MOFS macrumors 65816


    Feb 27, 2003
    Durham, UK
    I see what you mean. Perhaps it should read like this...

    Of course i'm guessing fish before this didn't bud ...:p
  3. alFR macrumors 68020

    Aug 10, 2006
    they've edited it already, presumably in response to your outraged feedback. Or maybe they read MacRumors. :)

Share This Page