Just have to drop in a note that 'Huffington Post' shouldn't be in the same sentence as 'serious'. It's not bad I guess, but then it does like to write stories about Betelgeuse blowing up in 2012, to name one extreme example.
'Serious publications' if we're going to use that term all play by the rules of what sells to their audience, be it attention grabbing headlines for simple folk, or detailed articles for the brainier bunch, they both have to be targeted to their audiences tastes. That is to say the majority of readers would have to find magnetic ribbons somewhat interesting, even if they've never heard of them, in order for time to be spent putting it into the newspaper or whatever.
Somewhat contrary to that though are articles in lower-end papers framing the article as interesting, new, exciting and more often than not a deadly threat that nobody can explain (where it's usually not deadly and rather explainable, if you can be bothered to research it, which luckily, the audiences of lower-end papers rarely do…).
Credible research simply doesn't always equal interesting reading. I get hundreds of headlines from PhysOrg a day coming into my RSS reader, and the vast majority are skip read, not even past the headline in some cases. All credible, not all relevant to me. Simple as that.
worrier (guest) 09 Apr 2011 23:07
