Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ...
by mikestew on Monday July 31, 2017 @04:39PM
(#14895697)
There’s nothing misleading about the headline, as your TL;DR negates nothing in the headline nor the article. Making a bunch of assumptions, which later turn out to be wrong, does not make the headline misleading. If you’d like to argue that there is, in fact, no garbage patch at all, fine. But just because you assumed that you could see it, when in fact you can’t, doesn’t mean the headline is wrong.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ...
by kgwgk on Monday July 31, 2017 @05:46PM
(#14896168)
> There’s nothing misleading about the headline
According to the NOAA (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/garbagepatch.html) "The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case.".
Looks like the very definition of "misleading".
Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ...
by kbenson on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:06PM
(#14896307)
I think this is a case of insufficient nomenclature. Do we have more appropriate wording that doesn't negate it's usefulness in correctness by being too lengthy?
Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ...
by kgwgk on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:17PM
(#14896364)
"Plastic particles patch" would be more accurate but it doesn't sound as bad.
Re:Plastic Micro-Particle Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in ...
by kbenson on Monday July 31, 2017 @06:53PM
(#14896566)
It also somewhat loses in impact because it's not immediately obvious that it's because of sea pollution, which "garbage" does a good job of conveying. You get there through some (admittedly short) reasoning, but that's probably what they were trying to avoid.