Slashdot Mirror
How Journalists Distort Science with Balance
The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately. Why are these two professions so often at odds? Chris Mooney discusses how journalism fails science in this month's Columbia Journalism Review. If you applauded Jon Stewart's plea to "stop hurting America," Mooney's analysis will strike a chord; the he-said-she-said approach to truth fails in all kinds of venues. (via: WorldChanging)
The more you realize journalists are wrong. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the vast majority of journalists have no clue what they're talking about. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Once you realize they're wrong about things you know, it leaves everything else they say about subjects you're less familiar with in doubt.
...is to get you to tune in at 11. You give them way too much credit. They stir the pot, scare the parents, overhype the cancer cure or weight loss drug, or show soldiers with puppy dogs as the need arises.
Journalism is enertainment for profit and sciense is well, SCIENCE!
-- "Life's not fair, but the root password helps."
Balance doesn't mean that if one person speaks the truth for 10 minutes, you have to have another person to lie for 10 minutes.
Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.
Off topic, mod down. The article talks about how irresponsible journalists present fringe science as proven facts. In the scienftic world you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists). These folks are often outspoken but cannot produce facts to back up their position. There there are the legitimate contrarians who really are onto something but it's not accepted practice and all they get is bad press. Unless you do your own research it's hard to tell which is which the way it's reported in the papers and magazines.
Crossfire itself wasn't hurting America. The idea that all discussions must involve side A and side B and neither can agree is hurting America. Lack of common ground is hurting America.
Stewart's premise was that real debate isn't happening. One side yells at the other side. Whoever can delude the most people wins.
However, I don't think a fair, logical discussion of the issues would work (for long) on network television. People want to see the gladiators fight -- certainly not gentlemen.
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.
Indiana Jones said it best:
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation.
In short, the way I see it there are six questions you can ask about stuff that happens: Who, what, where, when, how and why. The first five are the domain of science. The last is not, because it requires that there are alternative possibilities, and as we all know, nature doesn't cheat.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I carouse about in orgiastic delight! You speak TRUTH, my brother, a truth that those who disdain intellectualism and science itself have used to their advantage for many years now! A balanced report on global warming is not presenting whether or not it is occuring, but the degree and rapidity of it. A balanced report on evolution is not between Richard Dawkins and Mullah James Dobson. It's between Dawkins and Gould.
Siddhartha Buddha, man, I think what you said should be emblazoned upon the forehead of every journalist on the planet.
And then we should have Rupert Murdoch drawn and quartered, set fire to the Fox News building, and then have a BBQ of Rush Limbaugh. But that's just me.
It's very easy to dole out critique to journalists, a lot harder to actually be one. I write for a living, in a newspaper. My chosen field is IT and tech, and I feel like I have very good grip about the stuff. But I can't write an article like "Explorer sux0rs!, Firefox pwns j00", it has to ta in consideration every side of the subject. Not to mention that the MS lawyers would have a defamitation suit field day if I make the slightest mistake.
...the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.
The journalist's job is draw more eyes to the paper/tv station that they work for. Why do you think that USA Today has been so successful?...it's because of all the pretty colors & graphics, not because of the content or accuracy. If the statement above were true, than we'd be seeing the corrections on the front page.
Just another day in Paradise
The problem is that you report a commonly respected view and a view of a whacko .. A reader has no idea what the view of 95% of of the scientists are .. cause the whacko's view appears with equal footing.
While Fox and CNN aren't the best, you have other alternatives than the Comedy Channel...
The NYT, the BBC, Al-jazeera, Haaretz, the Washington Post, and Bloomberg all offer news from a variety of perspectives. You won't be able to tap into any one source and get an objective look at current events, but if you look at things from a variety of perspectives you should be able to make a pretty clear picture.
I can guarantee you that the army of writers propping up South Park and the Daily Show do this in order to formulate their opinion on world events.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
In the scienftic world you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists).
Uh, no, it's not the journalists' agendas which match the fringe scientists. The fringe scientists in question tend to be anti-abortion, anti-climate-change, and anti-evolution. How does that fit in with the media's so-called "liberal bias"?
No, it's their requirement to "tell both sides of the story" which is the problem: their editors insist they find someone who disagrees with mainstream science, and they then tend to present both views as "equally valid".
But if you'd RTFA, you'd know that...
So who gets to decide that "the other side" doesn't have a legitimate argument for a specific issue? Who is the arbiter of the veracity of one side's claim, if not the court of public opinion?
Segregation was long-standing social, legal and political *institution*, and despite King's complaints about the media, it's almost entirely (except in the minds of a select few) disappeared from American life, both as an institution and as a point of advocacy.
Perhaps it might have been overcome more quickly if the media had simply ignored the claims of those in favor of it, but what happens when the media does that with something like Iraq, Terrorism or some other issue where the claim that apparently lacks moral superiority is merely dismissed?
I have far less faith in science and scientists than I used to. In the late 70's academics were telling us we'd be out of fossil fuels in 10 years.
But that should give you more faith in scientists, not less. A good scientist is one who revises what he believes as new evidence arrives.
The contrarians the article objects to - creationists, disbelievers in global warming, etc. - if those guys had said in the late 70s that we'd be out of oil in ten years, they'd be saying now that we haven't had any oil since 1988, and all the evidence that we have oil - cheap energy, vehicles running on gas - is merely liberal bullshit being distorted by leftie agendas.
I think I'll take mainstream science any day. It may not have the truth, but at least, unlike the pseudo-science the current administration is so fond of, it's asking the right questions.
I'm a scientist, and there is constant pressure to boil everything down into an "elevator message", the sort of one-sentence thing you tell someone on an elevator when asked what you do or what you're advocating (e.g. "Cigarettes cause cancer."). The problem with this is that real science worth doing can rarely be summarized this way without losing important details!
Unfortunately, the media doesn't want to hear things like "Global climate is very complex, and the impact of industry must be studied in detail because we don't really understand how sensitive a complex system is to big changes in certain parameters." That's boring . What they want to hear is "Global warming is dooming humanity!" or "Global warming is nothing to worry about!". Both of those get more attention and sell more product. Presenting both of these points of view in the same article makes for an exciting "debate", creates controversy deliberately, and again makes everyone's advertisers happy.
The competitive pressure for the sound bite, the quick statement that gets your attention even if it's not remotely accurate or true, is killing real journalism, science, and generally most intelligent public discourse about complicated issues.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
Stop. Just stop. And learn something about how science really works before you start on the persecution complex, okay?
Scientists can say anything they bloody well want providing they have the evidence to support the statement. That's how science works. That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence. Even the most respected scientists in the world must support their claims with evidence. And even Steven Hawking can be wrong.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Unless you do your own research it's hard to tell which is which the way it's reported in the papers and magazines.
That is the whole point of the article! Journalists are forced to produce a balanced view of an issue where only one view has any real credibility! And then after awhile, the view that shouldn't have any credibility has achieved some simply because it gets mentioned by reporters. No wonder why our election was so close, why we can't decide anything anymore. It takes something like the WTC attack for people to agree - and I for one don't want it to cost that much every single time we have to get together on something.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
What you've missed is skepticism. A lot of people have Ph.Ds, or are considered industry experts, etc. It is very easy for them to get attention from reporters, or to masquerade hypothesis as proven theory.
Just as harmful is when a scientist makes a perfectly valid claim that is based on a certain set of preconditions or stated assumptions, but the media fails to report these preconditions or assumptions.
Don't lose faith in science and scientists. Lose faith in your ability to believe in every piece of information that comes (or only purportedly comes) out of the scientific community. Science is a system that depends heavily on peer review and skeptical inquiry. You have to consider all sorts of details that you won't get from most media outlets before you can seriously expect to be able to consider the validity of a statement, including not only the assumptions made in a study or experiment, but also the structure of that study or experiment. Otherwise, you are deciding whether or not something is true when you don't even know what the thing whose truth you are evaluating is.
Well, you have to make sure the grant providers get their money's worth. The problem with how the grants are given out is that prospective projects are listed with hypothesis, expected conclusions and practical implications. It is difficult to get funding if no one wants your expected conclusions to come out. Almost no one is doing science just to see what might happen; accidental discoveries do happen but only by serendipity, not by paying scientists to simply explore. Coming to different conclusions is alright but the 'file drawer problem' means studies which 'successfully' show a view are more likely to be published than those which are unsuccessful.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
Was it Dilbert who asked, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"
Education is the silver bullet.
There was a dilbert in which Dilbert tells dogbert he's thinking of getting acupuncture. Dogbert says "the theory here is pooking yourself with needles make you feel better."
Dilbert "When you put it like that it sounds stupid"
Dogbert "sometimes sarcasm can make you think more clearly"
Its true of news too
I'd rather have reporters than journalists myself.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece. For example, if I were doing a piece on the existence of extra-terrestrials, I would go out and do research on what opinions on the subject existed. Likely, I'd come up with a list that would include: "there are no aliens because God says so," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is unlikely there are aliens," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is likely there are aliens," "They could, I guess," and "aliens exist and abducted me last night."
In investigating each of these opinions, it would quickly come out that several of the opinions have little in the way of facts behind them. What evidence is there that aliens abducted some guy from Kansas? Does "because god says so" qualify as evidence for or against the existence of aliens? Further, and opinion like "they could exist, I guess" isn't really worth much, is it? What does that opinion add to the discussion?
Now that the opinions have been filtered a bit, we are left with those opinions which have some backing and credibility. There are still multiple sides to the argument, and there is still debate about facts, evidence and probabilities.
Think this is elitest? Fine. Let's add those filtered opinions back into our story. But do we give those opinions equal time? Do we spend as much time on "because God says" as we do on the guy who has poured years of research into a given subject as we do for the "they could, I guess" opinion? Why?
Others might say, "give the ideas a share of time based on popularity of the ideas." Ick! That seems a pretty lame set of criteria to me. That would mean that we'd probably give the "because God says" crowd more time than the "aliens abducted me!" crowd, even though neither group has any evidence backing them up.
What I'd ask of journalists is to give various ideas time based on the credibility of those ideas. This is obviously subjective and puts a big burden on journalists to do their research and use objective criteria for considering each idea. But then again, isn't that what most people EXPECT journalists to do? The sad fact, is that popularity seems to be the most common set of criteria for reporting on a subject. When has popularity EVER been an indicator of truth?
Given this, if I were doing a program on existence of aliens, I'd focus heavily on the scientific opinions using probability, astronomy, and physics, and make passing mention of the God and abduction ideas.
Taft
Isn't it odd how everyone else is an idiot while you're full of understanding about the world?
Isn't it interesting how all journalists are wrong and that anyone sitting behind a computer has more insight into what's right all the time?
Yes, journalists make mistakes. Probably not as often as you think. On the other hand, perhaps they make mistakes as often as programmers do. Journalists also have incredible restraints, such as time or column inch limitations in which to get the idea across. Yes, it's good to be skeptical and I've seen inaccurate portrayals of things I know about as well, but by and large the reportage of tech issues I've seen in the mainstream has been reasonably on target.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Yes, we're talking science -- not politics. The aggregate opinions of the community have no bearing on the issue. Data does.
From Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton:
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he
or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus.
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
"In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is
nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
"In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following
childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon
of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was
able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes
claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary
techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his
management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him
from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the
start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and
twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of
the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and
ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
"There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of
thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra.
The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary
was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young
investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded
that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ
theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through
diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the
blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other
volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and
swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called
"Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus
continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social
factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because
it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until
the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took
years to see the light.
"Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit
together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the
continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental
drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great
names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what
any schoolchild sees.
"And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and
smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory,
fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus
errors goes on and on. "
At least CBS corrected themselves and apologized. Fox publicly stated that they should be able to deliberately misinform the public, and took that issue through the courts.
Sorry to break it to you but american media does nto have a "liberal" bias. To the rest fo the world, even your CNN has a "rightwind" bias. Thats how we perceive you. It might be that your so right wing that even blantantly right wing media seems lefty.
Main stream science is rarly even covered, it's always fringe science that gets press.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
is the report by The Lancet that US troops have killed 100,000 civilians. This number is being reported everywhere as a recorded facts
When this study was first reported, I saw dozens of people on Slashdot questioning it's validity and debunking it. They proclaimed those who made the study poor scientists, and pointed out the statistical margins of error. You are here again proclaiming it to be poor science, and how the media simply regurgitates it.
Well, I'd like to know, how many civilians have been killed in Iraq? What is your best guess, and where are you getting your figures? I looked around and could not find even one other study, aside from the Lancet one, that even attempts to apply any scientific method to discovering this number. I looked at numbers reported in the media, and still reported in the media, and all of them are guesses based either on the reports from a few hospitals in less devastated areas, or by modifying another news agency's report.
I agree that this study has potentially serious flaws, it's sample size is too small, and much of the media has done a poor job of explaining the likelihood that it could be very wrong. But at the same time, I think it is moronic to attack the credibility of the only study conducted that actually has ANY credibility.
If you, as a scientist, were asked to estimate how many civilians have been killed in Iraq, what numbers would you rely upon? What study has a better methodology and execution? If you don't like this study, why don't you go try to conduct one of your own in the middle of a war. The scientists who conducted the Lancet study should be lauded for their efforts to come up with a figure that has some backing in scientific method. Their numbers are not facts, and should not be presented as such, but they are still the most credible numbers to be presented thus far.
In fairness, this depends on what you mean by "the church". These days any reasonable church recognizes that it is their job to inspire, to seek justice and compassion, etc., not, for example, to attempt to determine the exact age of the earth by calculations from biblical family trees.
One of the sources of our current problem is that discussions of religion in the United States are so dominated by the fundamentalist fringe.
While not a Christian myself, I recognize that Christianity has a lot to value in it, and it distresses me to see kids being brought up to believe that the only way to stay true to their principles is to swallow this sort of pseudo-science.
--Bruce Fields
2. The North Vietnamese were 'terrorists'? They were a fucking country you dope. Only under Bush are all enemies 'terrorists'.
3. You're posting on Slashdot, you're a Slashdotter too.
You're lack of thinking is living proof of Orwell's thoughts on language.
I didn't say that scientists aren't frought with human frailties. I cleared stated they are, so why do you claim otherwise? Why lie about what I said just a few lines above?
I claimed that SCIENCE as an establishment is self-correcting and, in the long-term, unbiased. The media hyped up cold fusion, which is one of the things the linked article is all about, and the scientists themselves used a press conference to announce their results rather than a peer-reviewed journal. The vast majority of scientists didn't believe the claims and awaited experimental verification. That's how and why science works.
Over the long-haul, mountains of observational data will crush weak, but politically supported, scientific positions.
Are fradulent claims bad for science? Sure. Are they common? No way. Do they get smacked down when they can't be supported? Yes.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
I tend to agree with "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." There is a certain percentage of scientists who get locked-on certain ideas and never change them despite new evidence, and later generations don't have a problem. That would seem to set the long-term upper limit at something like 35 years, the typically length of a scientific career. Still, they tend to be brushed aside long before they die and provide some friction, rather than a wall, to advancement.
I'd still claim that science moves a lot faster than politics or philosophy, and certainly some fields of science move lightning fast.
In my specialty, astronomy, we're to a great extent technology limited. Every major new advance in detector or instrument technology can mean dramatic new results. For instance, in the last ten years we've learned of over a hundred extrasolar planets when before we knew of none. We also learned that the universal expansion is accelerating, most likely the result of "dark energy" which we didn't even know existed. We've learned not only how to detect black holes in other galaxies, we've been able to measure their masses. And there are lots of other things as well, perhaps not so important, but that could become important.
How exactly has our understaning of philosophy or politics advanced in the last ten years>
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
I've been thinking hard, but indeed Western Europe doesn't qualify, neither does Canada, New Zealand, nor Australia. Russia doesn't have free press (nor does Italy), Brazil and the rest of South American nation as so far they have a free press seem to be more left-wing than Europe. Eastern Europe loves their new-found freedom but are still very socialist. Which leaves Africa, the Arab countries, Japan, Persia, India and China who probably view CNN as an American propaganda machine.
Thus, as far as I can see, the US media landscape is globally seen as a complete right-wing outlier.
The author makes a good case for micro-evolution (the fact that single-celled organisms change over time, not requiring the addition of information), but takes a sudden leap of logic to claim this proves macro-evolution and the formation of complex organisms out of simpler ones.
The notion that there is such a thing as "macro" evolution, which is distinct from "micro" evolution is much beloved of creationists. Of course, they can't tell you how to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, because they look exactly the same at the DNA level--the same kinds of sequence changes, duplications, and rearragnements. Basically, it is just a dodge; any evolution demonstrated in laboratory studies is dismissed as microevolution, while everything else is macroevolution and the result of "intelligent design." William of Occam would spin in his grave.
Whether or not you believe the facts point to evolution, National Geographic is not the place to look for scientific, peer-reviewed information. Then again, they have the guts to commit to a single point of view, don't they?
However, when it comes to evolution, they are saying the same thing that you'll read in the peer-reviewed journals. I don't know if it takes that much guts, though, just elementary knowledge of science--to biologists, "Darwin was right," is about as controversial as "Copernicus was right" is to astronomers.