[openknot]

You sound like someone involved in the field. If this is the case, I may see where you're coming from in terms of arguing for perfectionism, thoroughness, and notability.

However, as someone unfamiliar about the issue, the subject is still notable and interesting enough to warrant coverage in a news article. None of the information was wrong, and the article's headline only set the expectation to support the premise that 'electrocuted birds are sparking wildfires.' Plenty of users thought the article was notable enough to vote for it to appear on the front page of HN. There was nothing incorrect or unethical about the article to warrant the argument that this is an example of irresponsible reporting.

Suitably, the paper was published in the peer-reviewed "Wildlife Society Bulletin" journal, far less prestigious than Nature or Science. The news article was published in Science's news section, and wasn't a cover story or feature of the Scientific American or The New Yorker. Nothing about the work claimed to be a comprehensive treatise of the subject.

Instead of harshly criticizing the news article or paper (which presented valid data collected in a reasonable way), you could instead use your energy and expertise to either publish a better study in a more prestigious journal to add to your publication count if you're an academic, or get paid by freelancing a more in-depth article for the Scientific American or The Atlantic/equivalent magazine if you're a writer.

[UIUC_06]

Going for my credentials! Smooth move.

"Birds cause some fires" is a conclusion you can find with a minimal search on Google Scholar. It's been documented before. That seems to be the only contribution of this paper.

This was voted onto the front page of Hacker News. That was a mistake. End of story.