[cokernel]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the NYT article says they were hauling rocks "to gather samples" (of "fossilized ash deposit" for analysis). The next paragraph explains that they were looking for crystals in the samples because that can help give a timeline for relevant changes in the crystal's environment:

> Ms. Shamloo later analyzed trace crystals in the volcanic leftovers, allowing her to pin down changes before the supervolcano’s eruption. Each crystal once resided within the vast, seething ocean of magma deep underground. As the crystals grew outward, layer upon layer, they recorded changes in temperature, pressure and water content beneath the volcano, much like a set of tree rings.

It's true that this is not sufficient information to allow readers to replicate the analysis at home, but it seems like a good level of introductory detail so people can decide whether they want to follow the link in the NYT article to the volcanology conference.

[KGIII]

Hauling rocks doesn't really impart a whole lot of information. If they are going to include a bit about hauling rocks, maybe tell us about it - instead of pretending it's a novel with bison and bears. You know, science journalism.

NYT is a lousy source for science journalism. How about what kind of rock? How about why they were moving rock (heavy?) instead of just taking small samples? Bison, bears, and the hot sun are prose for op-eds and novels, not an article about geology.

Heck, they could have skipped that whole sentence and it'd have been fine. I'm not outraged, it's just lousy science journalism that is an example of their continued low-quality reporting. It's just one more strike against them, so I figured I'd mention it and offer readers a second article - which wasn't much better but you can combine the two and almost have something worth reading.

[simonh]

All the journalist is doing is setting the scene for what it might be like to work in that environment and the sorts of activities the scientists are involved in, for the benefit of a general audience. Some readers might not know much about what it's like to work in a nature reserve, it clarifies that the rocks weren't necessarily taken from drilled samples. It doesn't take away anything from the directly relevant content about the science. I read articles like this with my kids sometimes, but even for me conjuring a sense of place is useful.

Now if the content about the science was wrong, or misleadingly simplified, that would be a valid complaint. The recently linked article on baryonic matter discovered between galaxies didn't clarify that it wasn't talking about dark matter, which a lay reader might have assumed. That was a valid complaint. But this just seems a bit silly to complain about.

[slfnflctd]

I totally understand your point and agree, but these days I'm just glad to get through any article, anywhere, without glaring spelling, grammar and word usage errors.

If a science article in a major newspaper mentions actual methods used in a new line of inquiry at all, I consider it above average.

[KGIII]

I'm retired but I am a scientist. I am technically a mathematician, but I still apply the method and use the philosophy of science in many areas of my life.

I say that because I think it gives some color to my next comment.

I have some very, very strong opinions about science journalism and the changes I've seen in the past thirty years. However, I fear my attempt to express those opinions would be sufficiently off-topic and incomplete, as my complaints are many, varied, and long.

There is still good science journalism, it exists. It just isn't all that popular. It is quite possible to have good science journalism that appeals even to moderately educated people. I know this to be true because I have seen it.

I often lament the death of the ideal which is that of the citizen scientist. It is through gritted teeth that I submit the ideal has been suplanted by citizen journalist. That is wonderful, at least in theory. However, it seems that it has resulted in fewer people paying for quality journalism and it also seems likely that this is a primary cause for the reduction in quality.

It doesn't help that the evening news now competes with reality television. In a world where deep thoughts are limited to 140 characters, sensationalism has prospered at the cost of depth.

I ain't even started... I can rant for hours about the state of scientific journalism, or journalism in general. The lack of quality editing only compounds it.

The effect this has had on education and scientific literacy is troubling. We have a populace that can more readily recognize a Kareashian than they can an equation. It isn't limited to one age group, side of the political spectrum, or the population densities of their respective communities. No, no it is not...

However, I suspect that my rant would just be preaching to the choir. I strongly suspect we are in full agreement.

I don't suppose you have a solution?

This is actually edited for brevity. I removed several paragraphs. They digressed too much, even for me.

[logfromblammo]

If you can replicate vulcanology analysis at home, it's time to move. That's one career that shouldn't ever mind a long commute.~