Abysmal BBC science article

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

  1. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #1
    Look at this, LOOK AT THIS!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7909984.stm

    "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...

    then:

    "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

    MOFS

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #2
    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

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    #3
    they've edited it already, presumably in response to your outraged feedback. Or maybe they read MacRumors. :)
     

Share This Page