7 thoughts on “Hey, that’s not a nice thing to say!”

1. Does the first commenter there have a point? (Genuine question, I really don't know.)

2. You know when you've got a successful blog post when more words are written about the post than were in the original post.

3. The evil of presenting the data is that you forgot to tell us what to think.

   Looking at those graphics, I could tell you without thinking about it that Wal-Mart originated in the middle of the country, and Starbucks somewhere on the left coast. (Disease/vector analysis.)

   But I can't tell you about, say, Starbucks in Illinois or Virginia. So it's All Your Fault.

4. I admire Ryan for admitting that he can't think for himself. I suggest his first step it to learn how to use a dictionary.

   Since a tabloid, and not a Tabloid®, is "A popular newspaper which presents its news and features in a concentrated, easily assimilable, and often sensational form, esp. one with smaller pages than those of a regular newspaper," (oed.com) it's hard to argue that giving data w/out spoon-feeding conclusions is tabloid-science, since it's not easily assimilable, popular, or concentrated (though it can often be sensational).

5. "52% of people in New Jersey missing a Y chromosone"

   "Dihydrogen monoxide overdose kills dozens at Florida beaches"

   I think data without context can be tabloid journalism as well. I hardly think the Wal-mart | Starbucks comparison sinks to this, but perhaps the blogger was reading more into it than Andrew intended.

6. I'd say that 'tabloid science' does have data, or rather, a datum. The writer has an anecdote, and uses it to support a theory (pre-existing, of course). Classical masters are David Brooks and Thomas Friedman.

7. Barry,

   No, Brooks and Friedman write for a broadsheet.

Comments are closed.