As part of another class, I have been looking at science news articles. I found one in particular interesting because of the headline: "German satellite expected to hit Earth on weekend." You can read it here: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-german-satellite-earth-weekend.html. I read the article solely because of the title. However, it was a very misleading title. The biggest part of the satellite expected to hit the earth is a mirror. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-23/german-satellite-falls/50874916/1) Most other pieces would burn up on re-entry into the atmosphere. The fantastical, exciting way the headline made the article seem could pull readers in. The word "hit" paints a much different picture than "re-enter." Using "hit" makes it seem like there is an immediate danger of the whole satellite hitting Earth. Does science communication need the extra pizzazz? Is it common for journalists to use such language?
On the very same day I saw an article about a one-eyed shark some fishermen had caught off the coast of California. The article said that the shark had been verified and was not a hoax. However, the headline had called the shark a "mutant." I don't know about others but I associate the word "mutant" with the X-Men movies/comics or Blinky, the three-eyed fish from The Simpson's. The language didn't seem very scientific to me. Or it had at least been sensationalized.
To be fair, I decided to look at a some actual scientific writing (writing about science for other scientists) to compare how they title their papers. I went to the journal Nature to see what I could see. I found some scholarly articles recapping experiments and findings, with titles like "Metabolic priming by a secreted fungal effector." The article is about a disease found in corn and how it spreads. The title is straightforward and doesn't use any unnecessary words. The difference in language/terms used in the headlines alone force a different lens onto each article. The mutant article you read with disbelief and incredulity. It might be too fantastical to be true. The scientific article doesn't need to pull you in. If you want to read it, you will. Knowing something about the subject discussed is understood. The news article is trying to communicate facts to people who may know nothing about mutations or how they happen. A science news article has to garner readers and communicate a topic, usually complicated, which most people know nothing about. The different audiences both force a different lens and language changes.
One thing my dad has asked me about living in the South is whether or not I say hello, hi or hey to my classmates when I or they enter a room. I explained to him that it's fairly formal at Clemson (I have to be sure to address my professors by their correct title: Mr./Mrs./Ms., Professor or Doctor). However, my classmates and I are peers. So does the way I open a conversation affect the interaction that follows? I'm not sure it matters classmate to classmate but I have noticed that I address emails differently based on who they're too. If it is a friend or classmate, it's always "hey." If it's a professor or someone I've never emailed before, it's "hello." If I know the addressee but not well, I'd probably go with "hi." If I have received an email from them first, I address it the same way they did theirs to me. I hadn't noticed this mimicry before in the sense that it affects how I respond. If they begin their email with "hello," I follow with a more formal response than I would have if it opened with "hey."
No comments:
Post a Comment