You don’t really F@^king Love Science
You don’t love science, you’re looking at its butt when it walks by. That sums up my feelings on a lot of the IFLS type shares. I have a passion for science and science outreach. Nic Hammond jokingly asked on his share of the Cyanide and Happiness cartoon, Do you even science, Bro?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased that people are interested in science. What I’m annoyed with is the flashy, hyped, hipster style science related posts. In this Twitter/SMS-speak world, where people’s attention span is about 1 minute, not many people take the time to fully read any science posts. They plus the flashy image or hyped up title and that’s it. A while ago I found an image that looked photoshopped so I started thinking about the physics of it and wrote a post about it. How many of the IFLS people shared the original image/post versus my version that discussed why it was probably photoshopped? If you really F@^king love science, did you try the experiment yourself? You only need a glass and water. I’m sorry if this comes across as jealousy or sour grapes. That’s not my intention.
Photoshopped or Real: my vote is photoshopped
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChadHaney/posts/hzX8dQSC49o
Buddhini Samarasinghe has a great discussion going on, on her share of the Cyanide & Happiness cartoon with her own thoughts on the topic.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BuddhiniSamarasinghe/posts/Ua9gmTsQA8g
It takes a lot of work to do science and take the time to share it in layman’s terms. It’s also very rewarding when we get positive discussions. A lot of us, like Buddhini, Rajini Rao Allison Sekuler , Carissa Braun , Brian Koberlein etc work hard doing science and work equally hard sharing it on social media (that’s not meant to be an exhaustive list by any stretch).
We are working on breaking out of the stereotype that scientist are boring, white lab coat wearing, nerds. There is nothing wrong with nerds. I’m just not a fan of the trying to be nerdy to be ironic and hip. Nerd Nite (http://nerdnite.com/) is actually a really cool idea. I’d love to expand Nerd Nite to Google Hangouts. If you are passionate about something, share it with all the gory details but let’s skip some of the jargon.
Here’s an old post about the scientist stereotype.
Hey scientist, smile!
There is still work to do to get people really excited and involved with science. As a scientist, I have to look at my own evidence, and my science posts are dwarfed by my posts of drivel.
Science vs. drivel v2
So if you really F@^king Love Science, try doing some science. Try engaging with some scientists here. Better yet, tell your legislative representative to support science with more research funding.
Image sources:
TwistedDoodles
via Amine Benaichouche
Cyanide & Happiness Explosm
http://explosm.net/comics/3557/
#ScienceSunday
edit h/t to Brent Neal for the second cartoon.
May 25, 2014
I mean this in the most respectful way possible but: it would seem that you are the hipster:) ‘Man I was into this science thing waay before it was cool!’ ‘I’m into this deep science scene few sheeple ever find’
May 25, 2014
Jeff G don’t get me started on the people who confuse what theory and hypothesis mean in science. I often get that when the anti-science trolls try to have a go.
May 25, 2014
I forgot, h/t to Brent Neal for the second cartoon.
May 25, 2014
The core principle of science is skepticism. That’s something I don’t think we teach clearly enough.
I’m a busy guy. I skim the headlines of science articles all the time, only digging in when I feel there’s something really meaty that I have a legitimate chance of understanding.
But when I read a headline, my reaction is “interesting data point.” Or, more often, “that claim is unverifiable and clearly either exaggerated or straight up B.S.”
I don’t think the average Joe will ever want to read the source paper for every new story they hear about. But a healthy dose of skepticism would help make the world more scientifically literate.
May 25, 2014
that might be because they wish to imply that only folks with advanced degrees in the sciences would be interested in the sciences, not recognizing that everything we have, from this computer to the societally acquired notions of self that we harness to communicate through the computer, are technological products.
May 25, 2014
Chad Haney
Guilty. You caught me. I post things from I fucking love science sometimes.
I’m also guilty of fact checking said things before I post them.
I’m also guilty of posting about things like human eyes changing colour, and that girl using the Periodic table to leave her fellow graduates a farewell and good luck message, and pinging you, Buddhini Samarasinghe and allowing Buddy to introduce me to her mother for help with my Chemistry.
I’m also guilty of being a budding chemist. Guilty of being a budding Environmentalist. I’m in love with Biology. But death to Physics! Hehe. I did a lot of science subjects in school as a kid, but then dropped it when I moved here for business and finance. Was that a bad move? Somewhat, but the jury is still out. All I know is that if I had kept up with it, I probably wouldn’t have struggled with such things as reactions and calculations the way I did.
However, I do very much have the same feeling that you do with some of these science posts around here. It’s interesting how many people really think that they get science, and think that all they have to do is hashtag a post with the science bitches hashtag to prove that. Meanwhile, they’re just slaves to a trend. It’s somehow “what’s popping in the streets” to do that. Some of the posts I can appreciate, like when a guy posted that his wife, after 20yrs of not being able to see, now can, and hash tagged his post with #sciencefuckyeah! But others, especially when they are about things like redheads get banned from donating sperm to sperm banks because they have weak immune systems, and have no fucking proof to back up their claim, other than a Ginger Thursday hashtag, I can’t tolerate. <-----I actually got blocked for commenting on that one lol.
So yeah, right now, I am looking at science’s ass as it walks by because, I’ve missed her, and right now we are still in the getting to know each other stage. So far she is playing hard to get(I think she’s still mad that I dumped her years ago), but pretty soon, I might even get to introduce her to my parents. (And even though my parents are religious but progressive, oh what a day this will be).
May 25, 2014
Tiffany Henry I enjoyed helping you with chemistry, so you are guilty of learning science.
May 25, 2014
I try to post better stuff than IFLS… And I learn about science everyday 🙂
May 25, 2014
Love the idea of Nerd Hangouts! When can we do one? 🙂
My issue with the IFLS type post is that they are way too superficial for the average non-scientist to get anything out of them other than, Cool, Science! Many times the stories they report on are indeed cool, but only if you go beyond the meme and the hype.
May 25, 2014
SciFi Author: Lacerant Plainer your posts are way better than IFLS.
IFLS is boring and repetitive, but that’s just my opinion. Also, I think is room for everyone on G+, right Chad Haney ?
May 25, 2014
The F@ING name alone was enough for me to stay clear. Great post, Chad Haney – I could not agree more.
May 25, 2014
I’ve seen this comic circling around quite a lot. When I first saw it, I thought, “Yes, sounds about right,” and move on, but the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get by its truth. I also realize how often I see this everyday.
In a way, science is a “fad” right now in large part because of IFLS. I suppose the good is maybe it’ll spark real interest in some individuals. Then again, as Rajini Rao pointed out, so many of the posts are superficial and that sadly is enough for someone to say, “Yeah! Go science!” without even understanding any of it (that is true of so many fads, really). It doesn’t take long to think of examples and stories, but that is a rant for possibly another day.
Either way, great post!
May 25, 2014
I’m loving the G+ rants, keep them coming!! 🙂
May 25, 2014
That could be a dangerous request 😉
I did finally look at Nerd Night. There isn’t one near me to check out so I vote for a Nerd Hangout!
May 25, 2014
I’ll respond to everyone’s comments when I get to my desktop. I think we should work on nerd hangouts following the Nerd Nite model.
May 25, 2014
If you want wide support for increased funding of science, you have to accept that it will come through popularization. Show the big WoW and relate it to everyday usability to make people see the fun and value of science.
May 25, 2014
Science might be a fad but that’s still a much more preferable environment than a hostile one.
Trivially it yields a larger pool of potential candidates. It might fade like the last one did after the 60’s but then it might not. Well it will if the science people keep alienating mere fans who don’t want to put in the work. Nothing can be done about those, nothing to be gained by making them feel bad about themselves. Better to direct a positive message, augment and redirect instead of takedown (what every good teacher must know already!)
Focus on reaching those that might be converted and yet, even with a majority of ‘mere’ fans, all in all a preferable background to ludditery.
Also, IFLS is not the real problem. The true evil are those damn press releases that are so popularly and uncritically received on G+.
May 25, 2014
Chad, I share your frustration, but IFLS is just one cog in a much bigger machine. The media has been doing a version of IFLS for decades. Heck, university marketing departments continue to contribute to this by sending out superficial press releases that twist the science, which gets picked up by the media (“cure for cancer!”; “brain images show men and women’s brains are wired differently!”). It’s just now that the superficial “factoids” are more easily shared on social media.
The issue is that the general public don’t actually know that IFLS-type posts are not really science (and we can add Daily Beast type posts, some parts of Tumblr etc). The memes are presented as “fact” and the public doesn’t know how to question what they read. It’s comes back to the need to strengthen basic scientific literacy.
You can read a news story and straight away see: this does not compute; then you have the skills and knowledge as a scientist to go away and read a study. Most news sites and meme sites don’t even link to the press release they are regurgitating, let alone the published paper. The task falls to scientists to call out bad science writing. We also need to find new ways of presenting our information, not just jargon-free, but also finding new ways of visually “doing” science.
May 26, 2014
Zuleyka Zevallos yes, one of the things I enjoy doing is myth busting and sifting through hype for people who read my posts.
May 26, 2014
Zuleyka Zevallos indeed, and the rules of the “attention economy” incentivize the sharing of superficial half-truth and internet memes. What that comic illustrate is “infactuation”: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-new-words-we-need-because-internet/
Sites like IFLS should really be called “I Fucking Love…Stuff” – it doesn’t really help the cause for science because much of science is an entire social infrastructure consisted of funding, education, communication, personnel and many hours of long, repetitive and sometime fruitless labour that may yield knowledge that might not pay off for many years. The machine that IFLS is a part of is one which only highlight some of the potential outcome of science – which is just the tip of the iceberg – and not the process.
Some of the very same people who goes “Fuck yeah science!” and click a “like” button would sneer at the idea their taxes going into research.
May 26, 2014
You can’t ask people to change, you can change the way scienctific studies are being reported.
The problem is that popular media reports about the resulting “glamour”, not the journey those scientists took to get to her breakthrough. This kind of reporting gives the public a false sense of “cool”.
The “coolness” should come from how those high schoolers shifting through hundreds and hundreds of books and samples to find the right protein for their experiment.
But then again, it’s hard to beat “13 year old found cure for cancer” headline when you want to catch attention.
We need to start reporting like writing childrens’ story, the end result matters little, it’s the story that captivates them.
May 26, 2014
Exactly Tommy Leung
May 26, 2014
Tommy Leung I’ve read that infactuation article before. It’s a good one! I think there’s a really good study to be done about the impact of these meme-type IFLS posts on science comprehension. I was just reading something about Twitter and whether it lifts literacy and the answer was not as good as I’d hoped! Essentially people reshare links without clicking on or reading articles. Regardless, we need actual data on what different types of outreach do for scientific literacy. I know there’s an argument that IFLS /memes at least get people excited about science, but I would take a short G+ science post any day of the week!
May 26, 2014
Zuleyka Zevallos what do you think it means that a bunch of people have re-shared the two cartoons above without the post?
May 26, 2014
Science is not a fad. It’s a method of learning. And its impacts us in every aspect of our lives. Misinformation only detracts from the method of seeking answers.
May 26, 2014
Science sure has a sexy butt. Stay firm Science…stay firm.
May 26, 2014
I vividly remember when I was a grad student and I made my first batch of artificial blood. I excitedly told one of my advisors that it had worked. He said, “that’s bad news, because you won’t reproduce it”. He was right. I made it by luck. I couldn’t figure out what the “luck” was for over a year. That’s the science part. The flashy, getting it right the first time is the hype.
May 26, 2014
Zuleyka Zevallos it would be worthy of some kind of study – I recall that has been a handful of studies that have investigate just how various forms of science communications have been at increasing public science literacy, though I don’t know if any of it includes those little IFLS-style memes and factoids.
SciFi Author: Lacerant Plainer I totally agree (speaking as someone who does science for a living). Unfortunately, our current culture is treating it as if it is a fad, like a fashion statement – and all the vices of superficiality that comes with it.
May 26, 2014
I am looking for articles that would be accessible to my calc students that relates their fields of interest to the calculus that is being taught. So that they can read and write about it about what calc can do for them. Their majors are biology, business, media, and neuroscience. There are examples in the book but I don’t know how to make it interesting because most of the word problem applications are applied to such simplistic situations or oversimplify that it’s just not interesting. At some point it seems like the interpretation problems is an exercise in playing mad libs with the variables u need to interpret. The thing about hype is to motivate when u are down that is it. There is no content in hype. The difficulty is to show how a basic concept is key in an interesting application but interesting applications are very involved and outside the scope of the course. I would also rather spend more time looking at the details of something other than this because it is not relevant to my other work. I don’t know, I think I am defaulting on quiz now.
May 26, 2014
Shu-man Lin for neuroscience, send them my way and I’ll be happy to tell your students how calculus is important for medical imaging. You can send the rest of them to Richard Green
May 26, 2014
Nate Gaylinn skepticism is great except when it’s only motivated by bias. I hope you follow some of the people I mentioned in the post because we try hard to make science digestible without hype and without jargon.
Ricky Daniels I think you might be making my point. Technology doesn’t equal science. Sure they are related but they aren’t the same. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment.
Tiffany Henry it will be an awesome day when Science meets your parents.
SciFi Author: Lacerant Plainer you totally post better stuff than IFLS.
Rajini Rao another issue with IFLS is the name itself. Although I don’t mind cursing, I keep that private. I prefer that my science posts and outreach be accessible to everyone. I’m going to move forward with Nerd Nite Hangouts.
Corina Marinescu there is totally room for everyone. I’m not trying to tell people to stop following or sharing stuff from IFLS. BTW, I went to the International Museum of Surgical Science today and was thinking that you would love it.
Thanks Knut Torgersen, I agree, the name alone is problematic.
Carissa Braun I’m looking forward to your IFLS rant and I’ll keep you in the loop for Nerd Nite Hangouts.
Deen Abiola many of the people I mentioned above are trying to de-hype shares from the media and are trying to do it without jargon.
Zuleyka Zevallos sadly I’ve seen press releases from universities hype stuff up too.
May 26, 2014
You’ve got my full attention Chad Haney , any morbid photo? =D
I’ll settle with even a small one =D
May 26, 2014
Corina Marinescu alas, I didn’t take photos of the jars of fetuses.
May 26, 2014
What? Ummmm…no bueno señor
May 26, 2014
Thanks for the ping, Chad Haney, but I go to considerable lengths not to teach calculus. (It’s remarkable how quickly teaching a subject to a hostile audience can destroy it for you.)
May 26, 2014
Richard Green so maybe you can steer them away from calculus and toward medical imaging.
May 26, 2014
Maybe, Chad Haney! One of my contemporaries as an undergraduate at Oxford was then studying mathematics and philosophy but is now famous in the world of neuro imaging. (His name is Paul Thompson, in case you know of him.)
May 26, 2014
Richard Green this guy?
http://goo.gl/gixHmv
I’m actually not really into neuro imaging. The only time I overlap with neuro is with brain cancers.
May 26, 2014
Yes, that guy, Chad Haney.
May 26, 2014
Chad Haney, yous alls doing a great job. There are many who appreciate the depth and corrections (and likely a decent number of them outgrew the IFLS pond). However the increased sophistication does mean yours audience will be smaller than the picture-nebula-quote of the day groups. Better to see it as a pipeline than a competition IMO.
It’s the comic that I find particularly distasteful. It fails my would-I-ever-say-that-to-anyone-in-real-life’s-face-? test. I’d focus on what science really means and why there is more to it than flashy pictures. None of the rubbish focus on fads, shallowness, why they don’t really love (really? perpetuates the pedantry stereotype too) etc.
Most often the person will acknowledge and give a perfectly acceptable reason why they only interact at the surface level. Sometimes, though rarely (better when young) you might be able to correct to a proper appreciation. Still, all states away from hostility are preferable. Cultures don’t just spontaneously develop into ones full of scientists or even better: bayesian updating, likelihood based modifying of prior hypothesis distribution entities.
Again, the source of the problem is not at the receiving end. It’s at the source, IFLS just further strips what is most often a carefully crafted
liepress release. The University as a business is the real problem.May 26, 2014
Anyone with any knowledge of history should love the results of science. These “complaints” have an odor of elitism about them: You don’t have to have personally run countless PCR cycles to appreciate the value of our understanding of genetics compared to 50 years ago. You don’t have to understand the underlying mathematical implications of relativity to appreciate the impact of GPS or other directly-affected technology.
Better to have a crowd of millions supporting hard work that they might not personally understand, than to have them showing up with pitchforks and torches. As long as the public understands a) that there’s a tremendous amount of sometimes-tedious and rarely-covered work that underlies the advances they appreciate; and b) that there is an evidence-based mindset that underlies science, and that its goal is to find understanding, regardless of opinion, ego, or precedent; based on observable reality, and not solely on opinion.
May 26, 2014
Science communication can make for a more educated public, one which will likely support greater investment in science in the future.
But disagree with better to have a crowd of millions supporting hard work that they might not personally understand, than to have them showing up with pitchforks and torches.
The stupid crowd village syndrome is dangerous Jon Luning .
Better to have a crowd of millions who use their brain and ask questions…. and challenge everyone’s opinion, ideas, theories (including scientists).
May 26, 2014
I wasn’t actually offering it as a dichotomy, Corina Marinescu , more as a contrast between the present and the past. (Or the present in some places.) There are MANY far better scenarios. I would point out that, just as not all hypotheses have equal value or should be given equal weight, the same is true to challenges to the body of existing knowledge.
Reasoning, and the use or reasoned critical thinking, are tools of value. And certainly, an educated and reasonable populate of the planet is a laudable, if challenging, goal. (And is also superior to the crows with pitchforks and torches.)
May 26, 2014
Corina Marinescu The stupid crowd phenom is only a problem in so far as it consists of a homogenous set of unyielding beliefs. And their capacity for damage rests on how well they are able to marshall their convictions into unified action – I can’t imagine any kind of shift leading to a worsening of the status quo.
On the other hand, the wisdom of the crowd, with all levels of ignorance exhibited; smooths out to a very powerful thing indeed. A background no longer divided between apathy and hatred, where the sole emoters are no longer the most anti-science leads to a much needed correction.
In some mid-distant future, everyone will know how to program, understand probability theory, be widely read and will have systems to augment their knowledge and decision making skills; sadly that time is not now.
Right now it’s an incontrovertible fact that what Jon suggests is a damn sight better than what we have now. It’s close to what they had back in the 50-60’s when blue skies stuff was more acceptable and scifi was really catching on.. and those were some of the most innovative decades in the history of mankind.
May 26, 2014
Deen Abiola I’m glad that I posted both comics. A lot of the people that cherish IFLS are offended by the Cyanide and Happiness cartoon and some of my comments. I think the TwistedDoodles comic is less offensive to them and still gets some of my points across.
Jon Luning although I appreciate and enjoyed the Cyanide and Happiness cartoon, you’ll note that I mentioned that people have an opportunity to engage with science here on G+ and also encourage their legislative representatives to fund more science. Neither of those require one to do PCR. One of the things I have not adequately conveyed is the implication of I F@^king Love Science is that someone really, really, likes it. It’s different than saying, I dig science or science is cool. F@^king Love is extreme yet a lot of people do not have extreme feelings for science or science outreach. Again, it’s the hype and the short attention span Twitter/SMS crowd. My comments about the hipster feel is all about the name and not so much the people who enjoy IFLS.
May 26, 2014
I hated that it was horrified to be honest I don’t think that this was a great time
May 26, 2014
I’m not sure I understand your comment Lyndsey Rossborough
May 26, 2014
Chad Haney The funding thing…the funding issue is one of my…it’s…it’s a much deeper issue than can be handled by laypeople. Alan Kay of Xerox PARC (a group we can thank much of modern computing for) explains it at:
t=74m35
The way funding is done: the up front requirements, the management and the concentration into megalabs are destroying science and stalling progress by penalizing forward thinking undefined horizons projects.
On top of that, you have Universities being run like businesses with professors burdened by bureaucracy and grad students worked harder than indentured servants of old – all leading to a situation where society is unable to absorb the glut of scientists it’s creating. Such that most of them are ending up doing not exactly ground breaking stuff like data science for social webapps and walmart or finance or what have you. The other day, someone on HN noted how driving taxis for Lyft pays better than being a post doc.
So many problems: funding agencies, how universities are run like businesses, sensalization of results, problems with reproducibility, publish or perish, information silos and closed publishing; together and intertwined leading to this toxic environment for science. Not enough are talking about that.
May 26, 2014
So funny
May 26, 2014
Deen Abiola there are many problems as you mention. However, many of us keep pushing along, doing the best science we can do under the circumstances.
May 26, 2014
I looks like you caught a bit of my rant on Chris’s re-post already, Chad Haney 😉
And yes, please do!
May 26, 2014
Sure thing Carissa Braun. Thanks to you and Rajini Rao for trying to clarify my post over there and deal with the hurt feelings.
May 27, 2014
I’d like to offer an alternate interpretation based on my experience. If g+ had been around 8 years ago, I could see myself using the ifls hashtag (assuming that was part of my normal public discourse). I was and still am (though hopefully less so) a neophyte. I will never have the time or energy to do hard science. But, I’m in the stands, cheering. Sometimes, maybe immaturely, for the wrong team or the fluff or the butt. But, make no mistake about it, immature as my knowledge may be, any candidate who supports science education improves the likelihood of my vote. As well, I will pursue understanding rather than just fad. Which is why I always take special interest in posts from you, Chad Haney, Lacerant Plainer, Buddhini Samarasinghe and others. Many of us feel immature in our knowledge and easily (too easily sometimes) excited by (usually in my case) some study or observation that – if it were true – might carry humanity foreword. Beside my bed sits the current issue of Astronomy magazine. Learn Michael, learn. I guess my case is this – and several of our conversations have danced around this, Chad Haney. There may be two messages here: Express justifiable frustration with the pure marketers. But, also keep your eyes open for the little kid whose eyes and nose are pressed up against the exhibit case just a little longer. Some of us are just at different stages. Someone may be suffering from ifls today and be taking science classes next year. Especially – especially – if they’re watching posts from the folks you recommended. That science museum seems an awfully welcoming place. (Please excuse any typos – fingers are older, fatter, and less coordinated).
May 27, 2014
Thanks Michael Davis. I think it is clear that you and many others that have commented here are not just interested in flashy GIFs and memes. You take the time to comment and ask questions. In fact I remember the TIME article that you pointed me to as you were wondering what the real message/science was. I really enjoyed writing a post about that.
Silver Lining in News of a Silver Bullet
http://goo.gl/6yt4eD
That is exactly the type of interaction that I and my colleagues enjoy. It’s an opportunity to share our knowledge and help cut through the hype.
May 27, 2014
Good post.
The big ideas of science are very cool and exciting in general, but working in science and doing research is boring as a matter of fact. Scientists do really love science that’s why they can stand the boring part of doing science, non-scientists can’t.
In my experience is social-networking, the only way to communicate science with public is to show the cool part of doing science; like the big ideas or the cool results, and that must be superficial. For example, to explain physics to public, we have to avoid mathematics and equations; even though it’s IMPOSSIBLE to understand nature without mathematics, but this is the price of popularizing science. Our goal is to attract people to science anyhow and I don’t see any shame in being sometimes superficial, and I don’t expect people to redo experiences for example, they have to believe me, and if they have a doubt about something, we can show them the details and the actual process of an experience or a theory.
May 27, 2014
Thanks Amine Benaichouche. I don’t mind the flashy GIFs and memes to get people interested in science. However, I’m not to keen on the hyped up, misleading headlines. The name of IFLS is problematic when trying get budding scientists starting at a young age. The F@^king Love part of the name gives it a hipster feel to me; like it’s a fad and not something someone is really passionate about.
May 27, 2014
I actually respectfully disagree with Amine Benaichouche. While most people do tend to gravitate to the headlines which scream something like “God particle found’, the truth of the matter is people are interested in quality and science which is amazing without the hype.
People are actually interested in what makes things work. They want to know if the science is good and they can trust what you post, and they want to ask more about something which interests them.
For example a post about how the electron probability distribution clouds did not relate well… but once you talk about why water is a liquid (one of the few liquids on earth), people are more likely to click links to sciencedirect or scienceblogs to read about the chemistry.
May 27, 2014
Thanks SciFi Author: Lacerant Plainer. This has turned out to be more contentious than I thought it would be. It’s no where near any of my posts about GMOs or vaccines, so I won’t complain.
May 28, 2014
Chad Haney heya 🙂 no no, you’re right! i think i should have said it like this:
technology = science + engineering.
May 28, 2014
Chad Haney …. well its sad but some of these people are not willing to listen to anyone. Especially when told that just posting pics and headlines does not convey the story. And some of the headlines are to blame as well.
Relevant story …… and completely bogus – http://www.popsci.com/article/science/bogus-user-generated-cnn-asteroid-apocalypse-article-goes-viral?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=2&con=bogus-usergenerated-cnn-asteroid-apocalypse-article-goes-viral
May 28, 2014
Shame on CNN for not vetting something like that.