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)

Comments

Biased reporting or biased science?

[Thunderstruck]

As radical as it may seem, perhaps the journalists studied enough history in College to remember all the times when the general view of accepted science was horribly wrong. We're pretty sure now that the world is neither flat nor at the center of the universe.

Back in the day, scientists couldn't say anything that disagreed with the church because they'd loose their funding, credibility, and probably their lives.

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.

Maybe the reporters have it right

Re:Biased reporting or biased science?

[Phroggy]

That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence.

Groups working to fix this problem include Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society. AiG and CRS both publish peer-reviewed journals.

Because they're human

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just journalists. The same goes for the sciences too. Learn up hard about any given subject, and you soon realize that most of the people in the field are selfish twits who hold all sorts of ideas that go against what is blindingly obvious.

Slanted article

[Absentminded-Artist]

This article was just as unbalanced as the journalism it was complaining about. It was an opinion piece full of unsupported statements except in the conjecture of the author (such as: "Later on, even the Raelians themselves reportedly laughed at how easy it was to get free publicity." with no cited sources)

Notice the stories that were represented:

• A reporter censured for not representing both sides of the abortion-causes-cancer issue. Because the author felt that the only scientist claiming abortion causes cancer was a born again crackbot the author concluded there was no need for balanced coverage.
• Same reporter represents both sides of an issue in Texas for the inclusion of new creationist theories in text books. This time the reporter supposedly errs because he DOES represent both sides, but in the opinion of the author the expert for creationism is another born again crackpot.
• Later on in the article he cites Clonaid's infamous cloning announcement and seems to feel that the announcement was so spurious that if only the media had paid attention to the cited expert the matter would never have been reported.

Whether his fact checking is correct or not, or if the individual examples cited were convincing to his point, is not relevant to my point. There was a lean there: religious people are not newsworthy. The author's coverage of the global warming controversies was much more salient and thorough in my opion because it did not involve religious issues which the author obviously has a problem with.

John Carroll's comment that claimed Gold's story vindicated critics who accuse the LA Times of liberal bias could be correctly applied to this article's media analysis as well.

As for Jon Stewart on Crossfire... "Stop hurting America?" Are you serious? He was self-righteous, sanctimonious and rude. How was that helping America? Basically, if you didn't agree with him and his political leanings, you were hurting America. In addition, he refused to acknowledge he had a responsibility to ask Kerry tough questions while acknowledging that he would vote for Kerry and that everybody else is partisan. The hypocricy was astounding. He excuses himself because his show is comedy, but this doesn't stop him from supporting some political agendas, in my opinion. If Jon Stewart doesn't like Crossfire and feels that a better forum is needed for intelligent political discourse and debate then he should use his clout to make such a forum. That's the American way, isn't it? Instead, he wishes to silence the voices he doesn't like to hear. How openminded is that?

As a side note, I used to be a BIG Jon Stewart fan, but once he jumped onboard the Kerry campaign he lost his humorous objectivity and became a partisan - just like the people he mocked. His election night coverage show was painful. Whereas his supporting cast was trenchant and hilarious, Stewart whined about Democrats huddling up north together with him in fear of the rest of the nation. I suppose he was trying to be funny, and perhaps if he hadn't been so partisan and emotionally involved with the election's outcome he might have succeeded. But I, a registered unaffiliate with any party, found him dull, pitiful and biased - like the linked article.

Re:The Politics of Science

[jmorris42]

> I claimed that SCIENCE as an establishment is self-correcting and, in
> the long-term, unbiased.

Given a long enough time horizon I'd agree. But so has the general human condition been on a generally upward trend, and I'd assert that Science hasn't proven to have a much better track record of improvement than say, Philosophy or Politics.

Sorry, call me a cynic if you must but I agree with the guy (can't remember which famous physicist right now) who said, "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die."

Re:The Politics of Science

[raju1kabir]

In all reality, it's very likely that greenhouse gasses ARE warming our atmosphere and the surface of the planet. What's not at all likely is that this is strictly a bad thing, for everyone, everywhere. Landmasses will definately change -- to the detriment of some, but to the benefit of others. That's how the world works. Certain parts of the world increase in value, while others decrease, for whatever reason -- pollution, crime, accessibility, distance from other locations, etc., etc. Just because part of todays coastline is underwater tomorrow doesn't mean there's no more coastal property. Just because OUR heartland turns into a desert doesn't mean other places won't become outstanding farmland. Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad. . . Only failure to keep up with changes.

Yeah, that's what I said when I wanted to set off thermonuclear bombs in all the major cities, but nobody would listen to me, those damn change-averse cowards. Where were you in my hour of need?