Aram Zucker-Scharff

Meet the New Underclass: People With Ph.D.s in Science:

Once upon a time, newly-minted science Ph.D.s would get research jobs at a senior scientist’s laboratory, to train and hone the ideas they would explore at their own labs. But now the supply of post-doctoral students is outpacing demand, creating a new, hyper-educated underclass.

We’ve Lost So Much Antarctic Ice It’s Causing A Dip In Earth’s Gravity:

An ESA satellite has spotted something unusual happening in the Antarctic: As the ice has dwindled there over the last five years, they’re also seeing a change in the Earth’s gravity.

Bill Nye Fights Back.

“That still doesn’t mean the Earth is 6,000 years old. The facts just don’t reconcile.” He turned back to the mixer, sighed, and slumped a little. For a moment, Nye looked weary at the thought of ill-informed parents undoing his life’s work. “So,” he said, straightening, “the worst that can happen in this debate is I lose my temper, Ken Ham is suddenly empowered, his Ark Park gets built, and it’s all my fault.” 

Do you know Elise Andrew?:

The creator of the Facebook page IFLS

IFLS and Elise Andrew are cool. This article, not so much:

The way CJR covers the internet is almost always awful; the idea that no one has been a journalism brand since Facebook is incredibly odd (seriously, TV news anchors? Watergate?); and I’m pretty sure that profile articles shouldn’t have nearly 1/3rd of the grafs be about the author. 

Also, having the cover article of your magazine be a profile-by-assumption, as the author has apparently never actually spoken with the subject is weird-at-best. 

Also, io9 isn’t *really* a science blog. CBS should be capitalized. That the sexism issue was basically just lampshade-ed is a huge missed opportunity. Why are their no links to the other works covering Andrews? 

Also, giving an even handed treatment to some of her more illegitimate critics is a shame and claiming that one needs to be professionally connected in journalism to escape criticism is both false and entirely missing the point. Having a Reddit dedicated to criticizing you is hardly that difficult, rare, or particularly useful in grading her accuracy. 

Finally, having an article about a person whose claimed mission is to promote science without actually talking to any scientists to get an idea of what they think of it is a stunningly large missed opportunity. How about asking Bill Nye or deGrasse Tyson what they think of Andrew’s methodology vs traditional science journalism. Isn’t that the whole point of even discussing this in a venue like CJR? Isn’t the whole point of journalism to do a good job of informing and educating the populace? Wouldn’t some assessment of that be useful? 

*sigh* oh CJR.