Comments on: Is this the worst media coverage of pterosaurs ever?

By: More for the journos « Dave Hone’s Archosaur Musings

More for the journos « Dave Hone’s Archosaur Musings — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:56:22 +0000

[...] Park? Those guys did study dinosaurs and were called palaeontologists. As I once noted on here, I caught one journalist change my press release to use both ‘archaeologist’ and ‘anthropologist’ having [...]

By: Pterosaurs in the media « Dave Hone’s Archosaur Musings

Pterosaurs in the media « Dave Hone’s Archosaur Musings — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:17:02 +0000

[...] Published October 16, 2009 Science Communication Leave a Comment A while back I wrote this piece on what I suggested my have been the worst media coverage of all time. However, Darwinopterus has [...]

By: Tor Bertin

Tor Bertin — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:56:47 +0000

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/09/14/china.fossils.returned/index.html

Apparently they returned the 60 million year old dinosaur eggs.

By: Matt Martyniuk

Matt Martyniuk — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:23:50 +0000

Anything published in PLOS One does fall under the Creative Commons licensing scheme, but those licenses DO require attribution of the author or artist, along with a note or quick link about the CC licensing. Not listing Mark’s name when displaying the image and not citing the license is a violation of the original license.

By: Kilian Hekhuis

Kilian Hekhuis — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:38:11 +0000

I stayed very close to Crayssac this summer, and almost got to see the site (known as “pterosaur beach”, appearently). Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to actually visit.

By: David Raikow

David Raikow — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:17:22 +0000

Yeah, it’s pretty bad coverage, but somehow I’m not surprised in the age of dying news and standards. I had a TV anchor call zebra mussels “harmful fish” during the banter folowing a story on my reserach.

Shameless plug:
http://rivercontinua.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/media-relations-or-i-was-a-teenage-b-roll-talking-head/

By: David Hone

David Hone — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:42:51 +0000

There are two scale bars, one for the left figure is 50cm and the one on the right is only 5cm, so the tracks are about 6cm long.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:12:07 +0000

the wingspan was probably only around 3 feet.

When I look at the original article, I find the figure outlining the tracks, with a scale marker identified as a half meter that about matches the length of the rear footprints, not including the claw marks. A flying creature with 50 cm feet and a meter wingspan would seem quite an anomaly.

What have I misunderstood?

By: David Hone

David Hone — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:57:12 +0000

Thanks for that Steve. I’m not sure I did try to connect in one sense, that was a pretty harsh comment I left (though I did try to correct them more than just say they were wrong). Sadly that is pretty common though that comments get changed, removed or ignored and i have had trouble in the past trying to get people to recognise their errors. Thanks for the update on the PLOS issue – I was not so sure myself but another pterosaur colleague had commented to me via e-mail that he was none too impressed that Mark had not even been recognised (which is a fair point really, it might be free use but you can at least credit the artwork).

By: Steve O'C

Steve O'C — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:56:42 +0000

I noticed that you posted a comment on the news article in question. I think it’s great that you tried to correct the article. More Palaeo people should do this.

I once tried to comment on a Daily Mail article. They just edited my comment; it made it sound like I was criticizing the scientists.

I dare people to look at this article by the Sun. It should come with a health warning.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1087903.ece

Tried to comment about the article, especially about the picture (Aghhh) but my comment didn’t get past moderation.

(ps. the Witton Image is on the Wiki Commons because it was published in PLOS ONE. Images published there are on a ‘Wiki compatible licence’.
http://www.plosone.org/static/license.action )

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:05:25 +0000

The news article, not your post Dave!

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:04:47 +0000

That article is truly horrible. The idiocy of it has literally left me speachless.

By: Tor Bertin

Tor Bertin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:03:20 +0000

That’s so surreal…

Lucky it’s not entirely terrible–they’ve provided a fantastic example of how *not* to cover science! So reporters, take note.