I'm fed up with titles like this that suggest that an entire scientific community, or at least some body with a legitimate claim to representing the interests of that community, wants something when all that is really happening is that some particular group of scientists has submitted a proposal.
Here's the first line of the article:
> On Monday, a group of researchers sponsored by Breakthrough Listen, the world’s largest program, submitted a paper to National Academy of Sciences’ Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey that makes the case for establishing a SETI radio observatory on the farside of the moon.
Note that this line is also incorrect due to a missing word. Breakthrough Listen may be the world's largest SETI program, but it is certainly not the world's largest program, whatever that would even mean.
So this is some particular group of SETI specialists, which I highly doubt represents the interests of the astronomical community at large (I would guess that only a small fraction of astronomers even work on SETI).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the project itself, just the misleading title of the article and the general decline in journalistic standards.
The submitted title was "Astronomers Want to Build a SETI Observatory on the Moon" which came from the submitted URL (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-astronomer...). I think you're reading it with the wrong quantifier: to me the claim is not "[all] astronomers want [etc.]" but "[some] astronomers want [etc.]", which is perfectly reasonable.
But it's fine to change a title when it's landing the wrong way with some readers, and it seemed like there was a better link in this case, so a mod changed both the URL and title.
Not worth the emotional investment. Of course "some" is assumed. And isn't it more correct to talk about who wrote the paper, than which organization published it?
That's not how it initially parses for me, and I think for most people.
As for the emotional investment, for this one case certainly not, but this same pattern keeps coming up time and time again, not to mention the constant barrage of other nonsensical statements the media constantly exposes us to. I think this incessant stream of micro-aggressions against logic and common sense ends up having a significant impact on our well-being and at a larger scale may even be contributing to extremism, conspiracy theories and the growing absence of any semblance of truth from the ambient political discourse.
> And isn't it more correct to talk about who wrote the paper, than which organization published it?
Fair point. It's a bait-and-switch, motte-and-bailey equivocation tactic: on casual reading, the bailey is that "all astronomers‘, or a majority, or some authoritative generally representational body speaking authoritatively, is making a claim. The motte is that those making the claim are astronomers.
The harm is greater in that we're used to headlines referencing, say, public opinion (majority or at least plurality of a population), organisations (official spokesperson as opposed to some arbitrary worker or whistleblower), etc.
It's a cheap shot. All the more so because it seeks to borrow from the greater reputation and fame of the larger group, admitting by deed the obscurity of the actual group in question.
"SETI Group Wants to Build Radio Observatory on Moon" avoids all these problems here.
Addendum:
The article originally appeared with the title "The Case for Building a Seti Observatory on the Moon" here:
Here's the first line of the article:
> On Monday, a group of researchers sponsored by Breakthrough Listen, the world’s largest program, submitted a paper to National Academy of Sciences’ Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey that makes the case for establishing a SETI radio observatory on the farside of the moon.
Note that this line is also incorrect due to a missing word. Breakthrough Listen may be the world's largest SETI program, but it is certainly not the world's largest program, whatever that would even mean.
So this is some particular group of SETI specialists, which I highly doubt represents the interests of the astronomical community at large (I would guess that only a small fraction of astronomers even work on SETI).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the project itself, just the misleading title of the article and the general decline in journalistic standards.