Oh goody... The Daily Mail did a piece on my furry research
7 years ago
Yeah, it's about what I figured it'd be...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet.....y-reveals.html
Surprisingly, they did a good job cut pasting the actual numbers into the article (though they apparently got tables from someone else, erroneously attributing them to us, though they are nice infographics that may well use our data). However, they get a million little details wrong - and some not so little details. Like calling our project "Pleasures of the Fur"... you know, the VANITY FAIR article about furries a decade ago. But, you know, it's cool that you labeled our research with the same name of the tabloid trash article we were trying to disprove. While you're at it, why not have a look at the Catholic Church's new book, "The God Delusion"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet.....y-reveals.html
Surprisingly, they did a good job cut pasting the actual numbers into the article (though they apparently got tables from someone else, erroneously attributing them to us, though they are nice infographics that may well use our data). However, they get a million little details wrong - and some not so little details. Like calling our project "Pleasures of the Fur"... you know, the VANITY FAIR article about furries a decade ago. But, you know, it's cool that you labeled our research with the same name of the tabloid trash article we were trying to disprove. While you're at it, why not have a look at the Catholic Church's new book, "The God Delusion"?
Merch Store
But that would probably have been too much trouble, judging by the lack of editing I noticed. The author started by referring to your work as "Pleasures of the Fur," (and added a link to that.) Later they referred to it correctly as "FurScience." But the editor entirely missed the error, (if there was an editor.)
Then there's the headline, where the author started by telling their audience what we're not, then contradicted it. I figured that it must have been deliberate because no trained journalist would make such a mistake. Then I read the rest of the article... oh, dear!
But at least the sidebar was reasonably informative. It even linked to FurScience.