1 Victor Lindelof in action for Sweden Victor Lindelof was pictured arriving at Manchester United’s Aon Training Complex on Wednesday morning as Jose Mourinho closed in on his first signing of the summer.Swedish website Aftonbladet published images of the 22-year-old defender being driven into United’s training base where he is expected to finalise his switch from Benfica.United announced last weekend that they had agreed a fee, which is understood to be 35million euros (£30.75million), with the Portuguese club to sign Lindelof and all that remains is for the centre-back to undergo a medical and agree personal terms.He has been on international duty with Sweden and was an unused substitute for Tuesday night’s 1-1 draw with Scandinavian rivals Norway.Lindelof has been a long-time target for United as they look to bolster their defensive options ahead of next season’s return to the Champions League.He could be one of three or four high-profile acquisitions at Old Trafford this summer, with the club also understood to be keen on Alvaro Morata.The Real Madrid forward’s agent said earlier this week that had United had lodged a “very important offer” with the Spanish giants to try to bring him to the north west of England.
Are independent science reporters less credible than the big players? Given Big Media’s awful track record, the journal editors welcome alternatives.The editors of Nature had nothing to lose for blasting science reporters. According to an infographic produced by the American Council on Science and Health and Real Clear Science showing the “Best and Worst Science News Sites,” the venerable science journal (also serving as a news site) came out on top. They ranked best of publishers that “almost always” provide “evidence-based reporting” in their coverage.In their March 7 editorial, “Science journalism can be evidence-based, compelling — and wrong,” Nature‘s editors say, “A ranking of the best science-news outlets misjudges the relationship between research and reporting.” First, they share some nasty quotes from the creators:There has been much gnashing of teeth in the science-journalism community this week, with the release of an infographic that claims to rate the best and worst sites for scientific news. According to the American Council on Science and Health, which helped to prepare the ranking, the field is in a shoddy state. “If journalism as a whole is bad (and it is),” says the council, “science journalism is even worse. Not only is it susceptible to the same sorts of biases that afflict regular journalism, but it is uniquely vulnerable to outrageous sensationalism”.News aggregator RealClearScience, which also worked on the analysis, goes further: “Much of science reporting is a morass of ideologically driven junk science, hyped research, or thick, technical jargon that almost no one can understand”.The editors gloat a little, but then question the basis of the ranking. It’s hard to compare sites with different audiences, they note. And it’s “unfair to damn all who work on a publication because of some stories that do not meet the grade.” The internet has also “spread the brand and the content so much thinner.”Next, they call into question what “evidence-based” means. Can peer review satisfy that requirement? Watch as they undermine this esteemed icon of reliability:The judges’ criterion of evidence-based news is arguably problematic, as well. Many journalists could reasonably point to the reproducibility crisis in some scientific fields and ask — as funders and critics are increasingly asking — just how reliable some of that evidence truly is. Mainstream science reporters have typically taken peer review as an official stamp of approval from the research community that a published finding is sufficiently robust to share with their readers. Yet this kind of evidence-based reporting is only as reliable as the evidence it reports on. And many scientists would complain (even if only among themselves) that some published studies, especially those that draw press attention, are themselves vulnerable to bias and sensationalism.Whoa! That’s the crash of an idol falling. What to do? Here’s where the editorial gets really interesting. Is there any room for the independent, non-institutional reporter?This is one reason why the rise of the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review, has been so valuable. Many scientists know about the problems with some fields of research. Many journalists do, too — articles on questionable practices from statistical fishing to under-powered studies are an increasing presence in most of the publications in the infographic. The relationship between science and media reporting is far from simple, and both sides should remember this.Creation-Evolution Headlines scampers about like a small mammal under the feet of dinosaurs. It doesn’t even appear on the infographic. Even if it did, we all know what would happen. Because we dare to question the secular Darwinian worldview, Big Science and Big Media (including the creators of the infographic) would undoubtedly imprison CEH in the bottom right corner under “Pure Garbage”. We would be castigated for “ideologically driven or poor reporting”— why? Because that is the standard punishment for Darwin doubters. (At least we would have nearby inmates in the Huffington Post and Newsweek).But notice what the editors said. Big Science lacks reliability. Big Media is gullible to the illusion of credibility offered by peer review. “Evidence-based reporting” is only reliable as the evidence it reports on. In this morass of bias, sensationalism, and the reproducibility crisis, who offers something of value? The answer, according to the world’s leading science journal—whose ‘evidence’ often comes under our microscope—is “the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review”.Thank you for reading our ‘valuable’ contributions.Nature didn’t even mention the built-in bias of academia’s press releases, where employees in the Public Relations offices of universities and institutions write glowing reports of their scientists’ work to make them look good. Most of the Big Media sites on the infographic pick up these press releases and regurgitate them uncritically on their websites. Very few if any reporters have the guts to question what these press releases claim. We do.(Visited 63 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and four other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, accused of violating prohibitory orders here and obstructing public servants in discharge of their duty during an agitation were on Monday directed to appear before a Delhi court on May 15.Metropolitan Magistrate Akash Jain was irked that Kejriwal and other accused had not appeared before it even on the last date of hearing and said there was “no justifiable ground” for their exemption from personal appearance. Also Read – Company director arrested for swindling Rs 345 croreAdvocate Rishikesh Kumar, who appeared for the accused, assured the court that Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused would positively appear before it on Tuesday.“Kindly give us time for tomorrow (Tuesday). They (accused) all will appear. I am giving undertaking that they will appear before the court tomorrow,” the counsel said.“It has been submitted that accused number one (Kejriwal) and accused number two (Sisodia) are Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and remaining accused persons are senior members of the AAP and could not appear on Monday due to their busy schedule. Perusal of the records shows that accused persons did not appear on the last date of hearing,” the court said.“No justifiable grounds for exemption are made out….Put up for appearance of accused persons and arguments on charge on May 15,” the magistrate said.