Daily Mail group buys New Scientist

[bob sterman]

Daily Mail owner buys New Scientist magazine in £70m deal
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-70m-deal

[Martin Y]

Worrying, but I expect that editorially they'll leave it the f.ck alone.

Still, it does lead one to speculate on what a Daily Mail New Scientist story would look like. Recent discoveries indicate that future minor celebrities may be able to become up to 250% more beach-ready thanks to this revolutionary one weird trick.

[Fishnut]

I used to read NS avidly as a teen but I got increasingly disillusioned with it in the mid-2000s and eventually stopped subscribing. Their "Darwin Was Wrong" front cover was really the nail in the coffin for me as it was clearly a clickbait headline that they knew was sensationalist but did it anyway. They significantly reduced the number of books they reviewed and the articles seemed to be increasingly speculative. I don't know whether it's improved in recent years but its ownership by the DMG doesn't exactly inspire me to give it another go.

[malbui]

I used to read NS avidly as a teen but I got increasingly disillusioned with it in the mid-2000s and eventually stopped subscribing. Their "Darwin Was Wrong" front cover was really the nail in the coffin for me as it was clearly a clickbait headline that they knew was sensationalist but did it anyway. They significantly reduced the number of books they reviewed and the articles seemed to be increasingly speculative. I don't know whether it's improved in recent years but its ownership by the DMG doesn't exactly inspire me to give it another go.

I was a subscriber well into the 90s but walked away when the articles turned markedly to the speculative clickbait, as you say, and the bulk of the magazine was adverts for jobs that weren't at all relevant to me.

[Martin Y]

I used to read NS avidly as a teen but I got increasingly disillusioned with it in the mid-2000s and eventually stopped subscribing. Their "Darwin Was Wrong" front cover was really the nail in the coffin for me as it was clearly a clickbait headline that they knew was sensationalist but did it anyway. They significantly reduced the number of books they reviewed and the articles seemed to be increasingly speculative. I don't know whether it's improved in recent years but its ownership by the DMG doesn't exactly inspire me to give it another go.

You are me and I claim my £5.

[shpalman]

I think I had a phase of reading it while I was doing my PhD, but the way they reported on science which I knew something about led me to believe that also everything else they wrote was essentially b.llsh.t.

[Boustrophedon]

Given the lightweight journalism in both the Mail and the New Scientist, can I suggest this thread is moved to Relaxation Station?

[jimbob]

I used to read NS avidly as a teen but I got increasingly disillusioned with it in the mid-2000s and eventually stopped subscribing. Their "Darwin Was Wrong" front cover was really the nail in the coffin for me as it was clearly a clickbait headline that they knew was sensationalist but did it anyway. They significantly reduced the number of books they reviewed and the articles seemed to be increasingly speculative. I don't know whether it's improved in recent years but its ownership by the DMG doesn't exactly inspire me to give it another go.

Likewise.

Dad told me that bought the first issue. I think it had an article about the interesting new geological theory of continental drift

[Aitch]

It's not been the same since they dropped Grimbledon Down.

[science_fox]

I used to read NS avidly as a teen but I got increasingly disillusioned with it in the mid-2000s and eventually stopped subscribing. Their "Darwin Was Wrong" front cover was really the nail in the coffin for me as it was clearly a clickbait headline that they knew was sensationalist but did it anyway. They significantly reduced the number of books they reviewed and the articles seemed to be increasingly speculative. I don't know whether it's improved in recent years but its ownership by the DMG doesn't exactly inspire me to give it another go.

I still read it because it allows me to learn something in areas far wider than my work covers. The last couple of years they've reviewed a few books, but added in reviews of films/games/podcasts etc that have a science bent to them. The articles vary in depth and speculative nature, I do wish they'd be clearer as to which ones are reports of actual reviewed findings, and which are just speculation. (I was quite annoyed that the last one featured Metabolism , and all sounded sensible until the final points when you realised it was free advertising for the much debunked ultra-processed food people).

Given the delays in brining even a weekly magazine to print/email, vs the speed of online reporting, you do have to wonder quite what NS's purpose is - other than making money from gullible people like me.

Are there alternate trustworthy, wide topic, generally approachable, moderately priced (eg not nature?) alternatives? I'm a chemist, so I also receive Chemistry World and it's frankly barely readable apart from the areas you know something about. One year (for an xmas special) they managed to create 5 pages of article on the chemistry of chocolate, which should have been fascinating. Like trying 100% dark chocolate, it came out incredibly dry. I'd never stand to read that for fields that I'm only curious about.

[Boustrophedon]

It's not been the same since they dropped Grimbledon Down.

Or since David Jones AKA Daedalus departed.

I remember an epic war of words between the back pages of the New Scientist and the platform notice board at Northwood Metropolitan line station, It carried on for several weeks til the high ups at London Transport put a stop to it.
Northwood underground station was well known for the quality of the announcements: "The next train is delayed due to technical thingies." Which was what had started it.

[JQH]

I think I had a phase of reading it while I was doing my PhD, but the way they reported on science which I knew something about led me to believe that also everything else they wrote was essentially b.llsh.t.

I remember in the Previous Place, Duck once commented that their coverage of psychology was shite and asked were they as bad on the physical sciences.

[sTeamTraen]

I think I had a phase of reading it while I was doing my PhD, but the way they reported on science which I knew something about led me to believe that also everything else they wrote was essentially b.llsh.t.

I remember in the Previous Place, Duck once commented that their coverage of psychology was shite and asked were they as bad on the physical sciences.

Yes, I've been slightly surprised at the negative reactions to this news on Twitter. If you'd told me that NS was already owned by DMGT I wouldn't have fallen off my chair; it doesn't have a good reputation among social scientists, at least. (The interview that the Dutch edition did with me a couple of years ago was absolutely brilliant, of course.)

[El Pollo Diablo]

It's not been the same since they dropped Grimbledon Down.

Or since David Jones AKA Daedalus departed.

I remember an epic war of words between the back pages of the New Scientist and the platform notice board at Northwood Metropolitan line station, It carried on for several weeks til the high ups at London Transport put a stop to it.
Northwood underground station was well known for the quality of the announcements: "The next train is delayed due to technical thingies." Which was what had started it.

... what?

[tenchboy]

It's not been the same since they dropped Grimbledon Down.

Or since David Jones AKA Daedalus departed.

I remember an epic war of words between the back pages of the New Scientist and the platform notice board at Northwood Metropolitan line station, It carried on for several weeks til the high ups at London Transport put a stop to it.
Northwood underground station was well known for the quality of the announcements: "The next train is delayed due to technical thingies." Which was what had started it.

... what?

Don't come the wide eyed innocence: we all know it was you!

[Chris Preston]

Daily Mail owner buys New Scientist magazine in £70m deal
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... n-70m-deal

I am not sure it will make that much difference. New Scientist has done a poor job of reporting on science for many years now.