3 HN users recommended this comedy video3 months2016–2019score 3.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN commenters recommend it as an entertaining and sophisticated primer on reading science reporting critically.
John Oliver's Last Week Tonight segment on how media outlets report incomplete or untrue findings as settled science. It covers sensational headlines, small studies and pressure on researchers.
“John Oliver has a great segment called 'Scientific Studies' I'll link at the end of this post, everyone should watch this.” (HN, 2019)
If you're saying that the standard of 'reporting' on health and science in the media at large is often conflicting and distorted into a confusing and often contradictory form there is definitely validity in that. John Oliver has a great segment called 'Scientific Studies' I'll link at the end of this post, everyone should watch this. If you are able to read the journals directly and have studied how to critically evaluate scientific studies I can guarantee that there is significantly, like thousands-fold, more consistent information. [this video]
Great segment on critically evaluating science reporting
John Oliver did an awesome bit recently on scientific studies and how popular conceptions of them, especially media portrayals, completely distort the results. [this video]
Generally, I think scientific studies are uninformative as news because: 1. Most people are not close enough to the science to form an informed technical opinion. 2. The scientific conclusions of most studies are impractical to implement. John Oliver's analysis is both sophisticated and entertaining: [this video]
Sophisticated and entertaining analysis of scientific studies
This disclaimer needs to be included in any conversation about this study. In the same week that John Oliver ranted on the dangers of misleading scientific studies[1] we see headlines like "Medical error in hospitals is the third leading cause of death in the U.S." with no mention of the fact that this study qualifies an "error" as anytime a doctor isn't a perfect healing machine. [1] - [this video]
> While these errors may appear minor to some, confusing an opinion piece with research is likely to seem disturbing, if not egregious, to those in the scientific community. This is far from a new problem, and this particular piece is far from egregious, relatively speaking, considering how bad public science reporting is in general in the mass media. John Oliver had fun with it recently: [this video]
And tomorrow someone will find links between depression and happiness. There are 10's of thousands of studies published a year, in which case most are completely unfounded or ridiculous. With the right test group, right questions, and correctly controlled environment, you can create almost any conclusion. "Scientific Studies: John Oliver" : [this video] "Stanford News - research Scientists and Data": [link] "TWP - 64 Scientific Papers Restracted": [link]
I mean, doesn't the west have the exact same issues? p-Hacking, lack of repeat studies, focusing on experiments that will make the biggest headlines, etc. [link] [this video]
Cited as evidence of research problems in the west
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes