Crappy science journalism.

[theropod]

So, as I was reading some itself rather dumb, uninformative article about a new giant sauropod from Russia, I stubled across this:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/brontosaurus-returns-scientists-claim-long-necked-5473575

What a perfect objective for a thread! Hence I had to make it.

The ignorance of whoever wrote it is simply mind-boggling.
The author obviously doesn’t realise that Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus are genera, not a species and a family respectively, and that the question wasn’t whether they were different species. I would suggest to implement superior-review on popular scientific articles (finally something where it would actually help) until those guys improve.

[Infinity Blade]

scienceray.com/earth-sciences/paleontology/fossil-found-of-super-t-rex-in-mexico/

[creature386]

lol

Recent fossil evidence shows Spinosaurus was the first dinosaur that was able to swim, and likely spent most of its life in the water, according to a study published September 2014 in the journal Science.

www.livescience.com/24120-spinosaurus.html
BTW, if you need crappy articles, you only need to google "Largest dinosaur ever found" or "Puts T. rex to shame".

[drone]

Bush dogs, which weigh 5-8 kg, are suddenly considered "large carnivores":
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112694

[theropod]

^Well, somewhat misplaced, that's true, but not really the point. I've seen worse things in peer reviewed papers than an unfitting title (actually many titles could be criticised on the basis that they are uninformative, and this isn't among the worst), but that has nothing to do with the horrendously low quality of modern science reporting.

[theropod]

It seems every singe article I find gives that BS 2.5t figure for Lythronax. Talk about snowball effect…
No wonder wikipedia got it wrong too

And then there's stuff like this: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2489921/Bones-new-super-predator-dinosaur-dubbed-king-gore-discovered-scientists-Utah.html

While it got closer in terms of the length figure, according to the article T. rex is supposed to be "slightly larger". Conveniently forgetting to mention how "slightly larger" apparently means "50-80% longer and 3-6 times heavier". Is it really so much to ask for that the people tasked with conveying scientific findings to the public (and obviously influencing it greatly) shoudl at least concentrate while writing?

[creature386]

As for the mass of Lythronax, maybe the authors indeed said that in some interview with a newspaper, at least NatGeo quoted one of them on that.

On topic:
www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever
One in the comments summarized the problem with this article very well. Outer space is not a vacuum!

[drone]

Oldest Bird Was Actually a Dinosaur

An illustration of Archaeopteryx, now no longer considered a bird, but a dinosaur

For 150 years, Archaeopteryx held the "world's oldest known bird" record, but scientists now believe this animal was a dinosaur.

Archaeopteryx, widely regarded as being the world's oldest known bird, has just been knocked off its scientific perch, since new research concludes this feathered animal was, in fact, a dinosaur.

news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/archaeopteryx-dinosaur-bird-fossil-110727.htm

^And that was in 2012, I've have no problem with the wordings if that article was made before 2008.