Inaccurate Headlines

[Ginger Tea]

Astronomer, It's over there.

Astrologer's have mumbo jumboTM powers
The earth is 80% water and the moon affects the tides
The body is 80% water and the moon affects the emotional tides

one is facts based on observation and scientific research, the other just has whatever its been doing for however long and creative writing skills.

[Rapscallion]

And the astrologers fought back with "Hogwash!" and didn't offer a further explanation.

To be fair, they probably fought back with far more, but it wasn't published.

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

To be fair, they probably fought back with far more, but it wasn't published.

Rapscallion

Considering that you can't get two astrologers to agree on how the position of celestial bodies affect people beyond "they just do", I doubt it.

[Ipecac Drano]

To be fair, they probably fought back with far more, but it wasn't published.

Rapscallion

So we have one paper that played foul. It's not indicative of all news outlets.

I will acknowledge that the "Hogwash" statement was part of a joke, where the reply was "Precisely!", but I have yet to read more from the astrologers besides "ignore it", "I'm not gonna change!", or something like that.

Could someone like us to an astrologer's website that offers an explanation; preferably one where we don't have to pay to access it?

[Andara Bledin]

And the astrologers fought back with "Hogwash!" and didn't offer a further explanation.

Not in the article. I'm speaking specifically, as posted, of inaccurate headlines with inaccurate supporting articles.

From that article, we get:

So, Susan, you can't adapt to new information? If the sun's position in the sky is supposed to influence events on Earth, wouldn't it be important to consider that if the sun is actually in another sign that might alter things a bit? Isn't that cheating by ignoring that the sun may be in Virgo and pretending that it's in Libra?

Then there's this:

More defiance? She chooses to ignore recent discoveries?

None of this is new, actually. Well, unless you consider something that's been known since about 13 BCE, to be "recent."

So, what's the difference between an astronomer's observation of the sun's position and an astrologer's?

I don't know the particulars, as I am neither an astrologer, nor an astronomer, but both parties agree that they do not use the positions of the stars in the sky in the same manner. The short of it seems to be that astrology is based on the date of the vernal equinox, not the positions of the constellations.

Here's an article from Examiner.com with links to NASA that explain the difference and why this "news" is just a great big windup.

For another, more egregious example, just look up how many news and blog posts still report that Representative Giffords was killed.

Here's an article at the Huffington Post making the same complaint as this thread and includes a number of examples as well.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

Not in the article. I'm speaking specifically, as posted, of inaccurate headlines with inaccurate supporting articles.

That's fine, but it helps to underscore the point by posting examples. The ones linked in this thread really didn't show any misrepresentation.

None of this is new, actually. Well, unless you consider something that's been known since about 13 BCE, to be "recent."

So, they choose to ignore something that's been established for over 2,000 years? That's even worse!

Here's an article from Examiner.com with links to NASA that explain the difference and why this "news" is just a great big windup.

A couple of problems I have with that article is that she says something about a "resulting story, which can no longer be found in its original form on the newspaper's website, failed to distinguish between constellations and the signs named for those constellations. It led to many news outlets, including the Star-Tribune, printing fake lists of fake new sun sign dates." Sadly, there is no smoking gun, therefore the article in question is dubious. The other is that the link in her article to NASA's website was just a list of basic astronomy terms. I was hoping to see something along the lines of an official press release explaining in detail the finer points of what is being contested.

For another, more egregious example, just look up how many news and blog posts still report that Representative Giffords was killed.

...and they're still dated 8 January 2011. I've also seen the word "retracted" appear a few times.

Here's an article at the Huffington Post making the same complaint as this thread and includes a number of examples as well.

Well, I hope that teaches the media a thing or two; since people aren't smart enough to realize that stories change and that the media does tend to retract and/or apologize in light of new information.

Thanks to those stories about the zodiac and Giffords' alleged death, we now know that the media messes up all the time. (I thought their incompetency had stopped at the bushes next to my front door.)

[Ginger Tea]

So, they choose to ignore something that's been established for over 2,000 years? That's even worse!

What I think was found and 'ignored' is the fact that the sun is always moving in a larger circle around the stars (from our perspective) giving rise to the age of aquarius etc, if they then decided to always be current, they would be changing your star sign more frequently, well hundred years or so, or each year it drops back a day, so you could spend 30 years one sign and the next 30 another, be a bit of a nightmare wouldn't it.

Bit like that larger cycle of the Mayan long count, old doomsday is the end of the 5th long count cycle, like a mileometer that ran out of digits and reset to zero, here we have a calender that lasts for thousands of years by other counting systems and when we have age of 'star sign' its hundreds if not thousands of years where that constelation is more dominant in the northern hemmisphere sky.

[Ipecac Drano]

What I think was found and 'ignored' is the fact that the sun is always moving in a larger circle around the stars (from our perspective) giving rise to the age of aquarius etc, if they then decided to always be current, they would be changing your star sign more frequently, well hundred years or so, or each year it drops back a day, so you could spend 30 years one sign and the next 30 another, be a bit of a nightmare wouldn't it.

It beats reading about a bad day you're going to have 30 years after it had happened! (Would you like some lottery numbers from 1981?)

[Andara Bledin]

...and they're still dated 8 January 2011. I've also seen the word "retracted" appear a few times.

That doesn't make them any less inaccurate.

Which is the entire point.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

That doesn't make them any less inaccurate. Which is the entire point.

So, if you were to mess up and then acknowledge your mistake, would you like it if others point out your goof and call everyone's attention to it, even after your retraction?

BTW, so far, the only websites I've found that still announce Giffords' alleged death are blogs.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm resurrecting this thread because there's a bit of kerfuffle in the gaming world over some article with the headline of "EA research said Dead Space 1&2 were too scary," despite nothing like that having happened, and then that headline has been picked up by every me-too blog and recycled news outlet without any reflection, making EA look bad despite the fact that they actually did the exact opposite of what is implied by the headline.

Article about the issue at The PA Report

Apparently, the writer went all in on the mis-information at the original article, claiming that EA was deciding "to shift the focus away from scares in Dead Space 3." This is a gross fabrication and some seriously terrible journalism.

Particularly when, in the very same article, they quote the EA rep as saying, "The horror of Dead Space is still all there. It’s still true to its roots and no less scary, but people felt far more comfortable playing it with someone else than they did doing it on their own." How does this comment lead to the conclusion the reporter jumped to?

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Seriously stuff like this is why it drives me nuts when I hear, "We have to break them up he is the wrong sign for her"