Interesting! I was thinking references, which to me means other research that support the author’s. To me, citations are when someone else references your article in theirs. At least that’s how I think about it on PubMed. (Oooooo! The dreaded PCR). I want the author to tell me how I can find the original source so I can check their work.
Differences Between Footnotes, Endnotes, and Parenthetical Citations
One more reference!
Well, I have plenty of tech vocabulary to keep up with, changing algorithms for things like weather forecasting, and still keep up with my original fields when the day comes for me to transition back.
Besides:
It looks like all footnotes are citations, but not all citations are footnotes. Also that ‘citations’ is overloaded (software engineering vocabulary) in that it has multiple meanings. I think @shrinkrap’s usage of ‘reference’ is most clear. Change control form filled out, configuration management meeting held, approved, change in vocabulary. Now I just have to remember.
If you really believe that the NYT is a reliable news source, without any hesitation , I’ll take “differently-intelligenced” as a supreme compliment.
(Don’t worry, I’ve been banned from much nicer places than this!)I
It’s not perfect. And if you can suggest a very comprehensive source of news you find consistently more reliable, I’m all eyes.
In the US? No I can’t.
I think in casual conversation, most of these were clear, even if the terms have distinctions (a reference refers to a source of information; a citation is often the quotation of or reference to a source; footnote/endnote are about location on a page and can include references, explanations, or details).
What is not clear to me is why this conversation is being held in regard to a piece of journalism, which operates by different standards to academic scholarship.
In the case of the NYT piece by Carmel, the references and citations are in body as she quotes from sources and presents the process and findings. There are standards and ethics of professional practice as a journalist. Obviously, some break those rules and trust, but when they are found out they are fired (in best case scenarios-- and the response depends on the reliability of the professional media organisation for whom they work).
From what I’ve seen here, Carmel’s work is thorough-- amusingly exhaustive by many counts, including her own-- and honest. It is solid by standards of her profession. I’m not expecting more nor would I expect engagement with the references she does use beyond what’s there.
It would be interesting to provide more options for exploration, especially online where hyperlinks can offer that, but given how little in scholarship is open access, this would frustrate a large part of the public and academics already know how to do the research to find out more if they want to. In fact, in reportage in my field, I often do looking into the people who are quoted (CITED) in text because reportage can’t really cover what researchers are doing-- not because they’re bad, but because it’s not within their remit nor do they have the word count to allow it.
Then I guess I’ll keep the Times on my my reading list.
Oh I absolutely didn’t expect you learn anything. I thought I made that clear.
Enough. I let your first ad hominem attack go by. Now cut it out.
Moderators Hat On
We can make our point(s) without hurling insults at each other. Can we please get this back on topic and make our points without insulting each other?
Thank you,
I disagree. The lab is not identified. Not title or anything that would allow an interested party to follow up. NYT is post-journalism. It’s all about the narrative and advocacy, not objectivity.
ETA: Bunch of Google searches. EVERYTHING goes back to the NYT article. That means no independent verification and NO meaningful sources that can be checked for methodology. Some guy in a garage? Some high school teacher with twenty year old chemicals? NYT is not credible on technical topics - very few mainstream media outlets are.
Yes, anonymous sourcing can be pretty irritating. You can always wait for the lawsuit to play out - Subway will probably present evidence from a named lab.
In the meantime they are damaged. Interesting if they sue NYT to be made whole. Again, I’ll be happy to take up a collection for a credible lab to do DNA testing on commercially available canned tuna. Perhaps GoFundMe?
Defending canned tuna’s virtue seems a path with little reward 
Who? Subway? Or the plaintiff in the suit? Because my takeaway from the NYT article (which you say you did not read, so I’m not sure how you can claim that anyone is “damaged” by it) is that the lab didn’t find any tuna DNA in the samples likely because it was denatured by the cooking/canning process, so the testing didn’t prove anything one way or the other.
I agree. A bunch of people who haven’t read the original story are dumping on it. My point on the story was I didn’t actually see the point of even publishing it but there was nothing inaccurate or misleading in the original. What was misleading was the web story that was in the OP. There’s a lot of taking opinions for facts going on.
As to other news sites to actually pay and subscribe to, I also have the WSJ, FT and WP. My favorite is the FT. Nice short, concise stories and when its going to be longer they tell you its a “big read.” You’ll likely get at least some real journalism from places where you have to pay for the news than those which post click bait headlines to draw ad traffic despite whatever biases each journal may have.
Yes, people tend to have preconceived notions about what must be part of a story in a paper they don’t like, and who cares if their notions are true? The important thing is that they don’t like the paper!
The Times article was too long, for starters, but the story itself has gotten traction elsewhere - I think I first saw it on Eater. So the Times has to cover it, to show that they’re on it, and also that they can use more words than anyone else.
Wapo and the WSJ are on my list as well, along with a lot of aggregators ('cause who has the time?) like Gothamist, The Week, Politico, Axios, Wonkette, Daily Beast and (because I have to get my scandal news somewhere) Jezebel. I’ll check out the Financial Times. I never considered reading it 'cause I don’t care much about finance (a quick glance at my bank account will bear this out).
The FT has an emphasis on finance but by no means is that all it covers. I actually think it has one of the most interesting food critics around, Tim Hayward. During the lock down, he produced a really amusing series of video clips showing how to make various dishes when you couldn’t shop for much in the UK and couldn’t dine out. It’s also interesting to get the UK perspective on US politics. I also try to read Le Monde for the French view but it takes me a while as my French is decent for a casual conversation, but my vocabulary isn’t sufficient for reading the news. I’d love to be able to read Allgemeine Zeitung but my one semester of German is no help. I’ve been told that Germans sometimes need a dictionary to read it. Unlike a lot of people, I don’t have opinions on everything. Many times people ask me what I think about a subject and I will say I don’t have a view or opinion as I don’t know enough. Based on what you said about your bank account, don’t bother with FT’s How to Spend It. It will just drive you made with envy.
Try the Guardian. And my partner keeps showing me stories from The Daily Mail, but that’s too trashy even for me.
Oh, I know how to spend it. That’s what brought me to this sorry pass. Just took a look at the FT site and you’re right! There’s a lot here to interest me. Thanks!
Seems like the British papers do a better job of covering America than we do.
An outside perspective.
