I have found that people who excessively use social networking sites (to me excessive is more than 20 minutes a day) are narcissists and tend to be self-centred… a case of “look at me, I have XYZ friends”, where XYZ is greater than 50.

Social networking should really be called anti-social networking. Sitting in front of a computer is a poor form of socialising… face to face is the highest quality of all social interactions… hopefully nobody needs an academic article to realise this.

Kalevi – I’m sure people said the same thing about both the telephone and the television when they came out. Imagine how much of kids’ childhood is now spent in front of the television (and 30 years ago, without video games). So have the generations that grew up being essentially raised by TV hurt us in some way?

Sitting in your room alone all day reading anonymous messages that appear on your computer screen is “technically” the equivalent of having a social life, and if there is a technical equivalence then I guess that is all that matters, right? Never mind emotional or psychological equivalence.

Yeah, totally believable… For someone completely alienated.

Social networking sites are not a substitute for face to face social contact. It couldn’t do anyone any good to sit in front of a computer on a chat site. I’d rather go out and meet people personally. On that note I’m closing my computer and heading out to a yoga class in the park.

Bye folks!

In my opinion, you could have gone a little further and included the social benefits that Social media and the Internet provide for not just the lonely, but also the timid, the shut-ins, and people with physical deformities, who otherwise are shunned by the “real” world. Yet, I see you were staying on point.

Great article — well written and cited.

And point taken about the journals.. Handy tip if I want to publish an article based on my thesis ;oD

As for researchers taking the time to explain the results, I can speak from my own experiences with TV. My time is valuable, as I can spend 10 or 12 hours a day working. So imagine how fun it is for me to take 4 hours out of my day to tape one interview for TV, when inevitably my on-camera time is less than 30 seconds in a total 4 or 5 minute piece. Yes, it’s extremely frustrating and while it might work for people “in” TV, it does not work for most normal folks who have busy lives and schedules. TV is hard work, but it’s also extremely time expensive to produce good segments and most people just don’t have that kind of time to give unfortunately…

I will gladly take 30 minutes to talk to a journalist on the phone, however, assuming they’ve done some background legwork on the topic they’re talking to me about first.

As an ex-BBC employee who is now back to further studies, I do however see this media / science deal from both sides.

As a matter of editorial policy, the Beeb never byline online news stories unless they are clearly a personal opinion piece (such as “From our Correspondent” and the like). This is no attempt to shirk editorial responsibility on behalf of the journalist.

Many of the science journalists in the Beeb at any rate come from the science journalism postgrad course running at I think City Uni. They mostly have at least a bachelor, if not a further degree, in a science subject, and if they still fail at their task, I am not sure who could do it better.

Also, it is remarkable how few scientists are willing to take time to actually inform the public. My friend is an academic, and was recently on TV talking about something which wasn’t really her field, because 13(!!!) of her colleagues had refused to appear, saying they were too busy. Riiiight…

In general, I find that a lot of academics complain of the coverage of science in the mainstream media, but then when they are asked to formulate their findings in language understandable to lay people, they bail. It’s almost like they think it’s beneath them. They might fear being misquoted, but this is partly a matter of not feeling confident in their own ability to communicate clearly. Which leaves a lot of science column inches to fill with people like our friend Aric.

I am not disputing that this is a rather poor piece of journo work by the BBC, but I am also questioning the peer reviewers who allowed this research to get published in the first place! They, if anyone should know better, surely?

Also, I noted on the day that this was the 2nd highest emailed story. Lots of ppl read this crap, which means the Beeb is likely to reward them with more of the same. People get the media they deserve, sadly.

But thanks for an interesting angle! Now if you’ll excuse me for so rudely hijacking your blog, I have to go get my daily / lethal Facebook injection.