Slashdot Mirror
Bad Science in the Press
An anonymous reader writes " An editorial in The Guardian presents a good run down of what is wrong with science reporting today and tries to point out why this is. From the article: 'Why is science in the media so often pointless, simplistic, boring, or just plain wrong? Like a proper little Darwin, I've been collecting specimens, making careful observations, and now I'm ready to present my theory.'"
Exactly. Mainstream journalism, by design, was never meant to be a reliable source for scientific information. It was meant to inform the masses by creating excitement which generates interest and therefore sells papers. Science isn't always interesting to the masses.
Another problem with mainstream journalism, and some pseudo-scientific publications may fall victim to this as well, is puff pieces that are written by PR firms. Much of what you read in the mainstream news, especially in the "Lifestyles" section, is not really news in the traditional sense, but a subtle advertisement provided to the newspaper via wire service written by an industry PR group. Reporters are sometimes lazy about checking sources and will just regurgitate the puff piece or use the article straight from the wire as opposed to doing real investigative reporting. This problem combined with the technical nature of scientific news makes it especially easy for industries with agendas to buy press from a PR firm and have the material end up in the newspaper.
Not only the science, but the interpreting of the results.
The world's bad reporters would have us believe tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people died and are in ill health because of chernobyl, but when it comes down to facts and reality 56 people are known to have died, and there are no profound negative impacts to the surrounding population.
Bad Science is all about getting attention for personal, political or financial gain.
RST
The difference is that journalists covering those other fields they know nothing about are expected to do their homework and, by the time they finish writing the story, know something about it. They don't always succeed, of course, but the editors' and readers' expectation is that they'll at least try. When it comes to reporting on science, OTOH ... well, TFA has it exactly right.
One point that's touched on in TFA, but perhaps not given enough attention, is the spurious idea of "balance," usually personified by getting a few words from a serious scientist on one hand and a few paragraphs from a quack on the other. This is how we end up with "ancient mysteries of Atlantis" and "professional paranormal investigators" and astrologers and creationists/ID'ers et al being taken seriously.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think the type of publication is a very significant contributor to the prevalance of Bad Science reporting, even more so than the article's thesis of "Humanties Majors run amok."
If you look at many general interest news publications, whether they be monthly magazines or daily papers, you'll find they don't often even have a dedicated science reporter. Even when they claim to, it's really a "Health" reporter, who's often much more likely to cover the latest exercise craze or green tea fad than actual metabolic research from the NIH (incidently, at least one major science journalism prize now specifically excludes "health" articles for this reason.) Even when they do have science reporters, the Guardian's article makes a good point: unlike the financial or politics pages, the science beat reporter must assume no, or very little, prior knowledge of science, and this is enforced by their editors. While this may (sadly) be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as scientific literacy among the public is appalling, you can see how it's a vicious cycle kind of thing. And it's the rare general interest publication indeed that would have more than one staff reporter or editor dedicated to covering science.
But I think there's still good science journalism out there, in the science and tech magazines, like New Scientist or Discover. Not only can you assume the audience knows what the terms "volt" or "DNA" mean, you can get much more space to give a real explanation of what's going on. While stories are still supposed to be timely, they're not usually tied to the daIly press release cycle either. And this type of publication is much more likley to employ people with science backgrounds. Here I should state my possible bias: I'm a science journalist for a monthly emerging technology magazine with a university education in experimental physics! But I should say that one of our best writers here, if not the best, was an English major in college. But after a few years now on the semiconductor beat he probably knows more about, say, dielectrics, than I ever did, not least because he had the time to learn, time often in short supply when one is the sole science reporter on a newsstand publication, and so have to cover the entire scientific waterfront. Reporters for science/tech publications can usually focus on a few areas at a time and really learn them in depth, and that makes a huge difference.
This is why I feel the publication makes a much bigger difference than some seething secret Romantic resentment from journalists to the quality of science reporting. It's the publishers and editors which set the standards for articles, not individual reporters, after all.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
As a science journalist working for Another Science/Tech Publication, I can second that -- New Scientist is worth reading.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
I would add that The Economist is also usually a very good source for science news, even though it doesn't come with the frequency or pagecount to warrent calling The Economist a scientific publication.
You got that here, right?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The European Dark Ages were a time of political fragmentation (fall of the Roman Empire), repeated waves of invasion by foreign entities (Vandals, Huns, Vikings, etc), de-urbanization, loss of knowledge and learning (destruction of the Akadamies), religious persecution (Christians wiping out Pagans) and lots of other "Dark" stuff, which is why it is called the Dark Ages. They were followed by the Middle Ages, a time of political unification (rise of proto-national kingdoms), learning (re-introduction of knowledge from strongholds in Muslim Spain and Turkey), introduction of exotic foreign technologies (printing press, astrolabe) establishment of Universities and the rise of new cities. It's relatively recent for some people to differentiate between the Dark and Medieval periods, but the Dark years were indeed Dark.
I'm a longtime and mostly happy subscriber to Science News. It's weekly and seems to hire educated reporters.
Here's a nice analysis of the dubious claims made by Crichton in his speeches and in the footnotes of his novel State of Fear.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
>Whether "intelligent design" or "global warming", science is being used as a tool of politics - which is something it is not and never should be.
You can't do this by reading the mainstream press, but on the web you can disentangle scientific information from politics by reading what climatologists think. That site draws a sharp line between political questions (should we ratify the Kyoto treaty?) and scientific questions (why do ice ages end before CO2 levels go up?).
Newspapers hype everything and do their best take things out of context.
A few headlines that would show that this is not the case:
Admittedly there are some things that are big stories, but because every paper every day has to have a headline they look to be less than they actually are.
If you have access to them, the big "science tabloids", Nature and Science, have very good summaries and explanations of their most important articles. You'd be surprised. It is now so strange, really, because they have a large reader base from very many disciplines and these people (usually scientists) want to know and understand what happens in other fields without having to have a PhD in those fields.
You can probably find them in your local college library. Have a look!
Reality or nothing.
A mainstream news magazine which can, in fact, get science generally correct.
As well as most of their other reporting. They have a clear editorial bias, but it is at least open, and mostly rational unlike the Wall Street Journal (editorials).
Yes, I am a professional scientist myself, and I have fairly high standards on this. The Economist does well, sometimes the NYTimes science reporter, and few others.
Well there's a start to your bad science right there.
That is so true. Darwin is just a trick to remove morality from education. I for one believe in the Intellgent Design theory of Bad Science in the Media. See, there's a few large media conglomerates. "Media gods," if you will. Now these media gods are powerful, but they constantly vie for even more power.
Now, these media gods, are aren't true gods. They're more like lesser gods. So they pay tribute to more powerful gods. These media gods, aren't the only lesser gods. There's also energy gods, gun gods, even church gods, or "god gods" if you will. Now you would think that this pantheon of lesser gods would be self-interested, but they're not, well not completely. Some of the media gods actually subscribe to the same agenda as the other gods and
actively promote it.
This celestrial mutual admiration uses the media and public's ignorance of science to mask their crass manipulation of facts to further their economic and furthering of their sociological agenda.
Now these media gods, along with the with lesser gods, have taken a page out of Baudelaire's book. Using their considerable resources have attempted to convince the world that they don't exist. Of course, they sometimes slip up and admit to the charade.
The saddest thing about this, is that this post didn't come off as crackpotty as I intended.
ID is a hypothesis.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
I like New Scientist but put more faith in Nature and Science. There are also some good narrow focus ".org's" out there such as RealClimate
I also like the Gaurdian. From TFA, "What did you think of this article? Mail your responses to life@guardian.co.uk and include your name and address."
I think every slashdotter who agrees with TFA sentiments should take a couple of minutes to write and suggest that they promote the author to "science editor" (if they have one?). Be sure to include any relevant qualifications (eg:B.Sc, Dr, etc) in your title.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
While Einstein left his secondary school early without qualifications, it was not because of academic slackness. His work in primary school had been excellent. Here his mother writes to her sister:
He went on to a further education college to obtain the qualifications for university entrance. He got fairly high marks here (top in maths and physics, etc).
Some of the "Eintein did badly at school" reputation comes from the difference in Swiss and German marking systems. Switzerland where Einstein studied used 6 as the best grade and 1 as the worst grade. Germany used 1 as the best and 6 as the worst. In time his results of 5 and 6 (good results in Switzerland) were transposed into the German system, making them seem bad. I'm not sure, but I did hear that Switzerland now uses the German system, thus compounding the problem.
Nope, sorry, your chronology is 100% wrong. The traditional date for the fall of Rome is 476, when the last Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by a Gothic chieftan, who instead of putting up another puppet emperor simply crowned himself King of Italy. Conversion of the Northlands to Christianity didn't even *begin* until the 800s, and wasn't completed until the 1100s. The coming of Christianity to the Vikings marks the end of the Dark Ages, not the beginning.
Chris Mattern
... "Informative"? Did you people even read the link?
It's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, not stolen from the linked post like the parent seems to imply.
Hollywood is the propaganda machine for the NWO that projects certain stereotypes and propagates certain messages in every movie: -the black hero always dies -homosexuality is good, even accepted (the Great Alexander, Troi, anger management) -christianity is a bogus religion (the Davinci code, the passion of the Christ) -magic may be good (harry potter, bewitched) -the nuclear family (father, mother, children) model is a failure; friends are the best thing there is, and occasional sex between friends and partner exchanging is good (sex and the city, desperate housewifes, friends) There are many more movies that right now are not in my mind...all the above are part of a deliberate attempt to control the people by steering them away from family values and into uncontrolled sex, drugs and 'having fun'. Check out the executive producers in all the films and series: the same gang of people makes them...
To be more exact: The conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity took place in 312-320 during the regentship of Emperor Constantinus the Great (285-337), and Emperor Julian Apostata was the only later Emperor who not endorsed the new christian belief.
Rome itself was conquered first by the goths in 410, and all later Roman Emperors were just some puppets of the north italian East Goth Kingdom which was based in Ravenna and which finally fell to the conquest by Narses of Constantinople in 552, who made Emperor Iustinian the first East Roman (byzanthian) emperor of both Rome and Constantinople.
At this time most of the old west roman provinces were occupied by german tribes: Hispania by the West Goths and Vandals, Gallia by the Franconians, and the Saxons were about to settle in Anglia. Hibernia (Ireland) was the last roman-catholic outpost, and the dark ages refer to the fact, that Christianity was nearly dead for most of Western Europe at this time. From Ireland started the missions to convert all those german tribes to Christianity again, starting with the foundation of Lindisfarne in England in the mid 7th century. Bonifacius (~675 - 754) started out in 715 first to Friesia, since 732 to the Franconians after Charles Martell overthrew the last of the Merowingian Kings which ruled Franconia since 482, and finally died in an friesian ambush 754. The grandson of Charles Martell, Charlesmagne, finalized the official conversion of Franconia to Christianity by his coronation to Roman Emperor in 800 by Pope Leo III.
Conversion of the Northlands to Christianity didn't even *begin* until the 800s, and wasn't completed until the 1100s. The coming of Christianity to the Vikings marks the end of the Dark Ages, not the beginning.
Yes, but as a consequence of other things, not a cause.
As a previous poster noted, the term 'dark ages' refers more to our gap in knowledge than how people lived -- a woman was not more or less likely to die in childbirth, for example, in 1100 than in 600.
What the Church brought to the picture was standardized (relatively) records and a huge administrative apparatus. Thanks to the organization of the Curch, it was possible to keep track of births, deaths, and marriages much more easily.
What really changed the way people lived between the Fall of Rome and the High Middle Ages (about 1100 to 1300) were inventions that seem pretty mundane to us now -- a new type of plow, a new kind of loom, innovations in sail design that let ships tack into the wind, doubling or tripling the number of journeys possible in a year.
The plow, made with a curved piece of metal instead of wood (though I can't remember all the details), would cut through and turn even very rocky northern-European soils, while the older wood plow would just bounce over rocks. This greatly increased the amount of arable land, and meant that for the first time there were food surpluses (and so opportunities for trade).
The mechanical loom increased exponentially the amount of cloth that could be produced, which further drove trade, and which also meant that pretty much any journey between the Italian ports and the Arabian peninsula were profitable, leading to vast improvements in ship design.
The trade, of course, made cloth producers and sellers very rich, though maybe not as much as the traders and shippers in Venice and Florence. The need for currency drove the development of mines and mints in central Europe.
All this wonderful commerce gave your average villager something brand-new: free time and a bit of cash. Of course the new administrations of the church and state had to be paid for, and this was much easier to do with currency than with tributes of corn and sheep (although this practice continued into the 20th centrury in parts of Austria-Hungary, Russia, etc).
My point is that the church was a part of something larger that was happening at the time. It was a significant part, particularly the Church's role in public administration, record-keeping, banking, education, etc. But the church wasn't the primary cause of development in Europe between, say 500 and 1100. They were, though, one of the primary beneficiaries.
No, you're thinking of Rome. The "Byzantines" were a very sophisticated culture, a fusion of Greek and Roman influences (more so than Rome itself had previously been), they had a large city with sophisticated architecture, conducted extensive trade, and were the most sophisticated society in Europe at the time (they invented "greek fire", developed a military doctrine not too different than Sun Tzu's, and did many other things). They were, essentially, a classical civilization in a post-classical age.
Venice on the other hand, was a powerful merchant empire based in their city-state. They dominated trade in the Mediterranean. They were patrons of the arts, and as a result, was one of the most beautiful cities throughout the entire era...and their goods were as much in demand as asian goods. Venician glassworks were legendary. They never had any agenda of "spreading Christianity."
Then your textbooks are wrong. They've been altered by people with a particular political agenda.
Bigotry is false conclusions in the ABSENCE of data.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Guardian is one of the biggest perpetraters of bad science for a major newspaper.
And it is not only science. I have seen outright errors in Guardian articles that even the most basic first-level fact-checking (i.e. a Google search) should have found.
Carl Sagan wrote a great book about this phenomenon, called The Demon Haunted World. It systematically debunks many of the popular "scientific" myths widely believed by the public and perpetuated by the media (ghosts, UFO abductions, psychics, etc). It talks in depth about how real science gets filtered out by the media, in favor of junk science. I can't recommend this book enough!
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
The media does a poor job of reporting on any subject requiring specialist knowledge. A few years ago at the height of the Corporate governance scandals, accountants were rolling their eyes at the sheer incompetence of the coverage. I have seen dozens of stories about spikes in gas prices related to Katrina but none of them explain that gas stations set prices based on the replacement cost of gas already in their tanks.
The basic problem is that reporters are just like the rest of us in that we all have an limited area of specialization within which we are experts but outside of that area we revert to morons. Journalist differ in that they try to convinces themselves that they understand any subject well enough to explain it to anyone else.
IIRC, Darwin's original theories were wildly incorrect and were greatly modified before a large proporition of the scientific community would accept them. Even now, the theory of natural selection is certainly very well supported by evidence and you'd find few people seriously doubting it, but the idea that genetic material can be added to a species, rather than lost, is still to be very much found wanting.
Richard Dawkins is often held up as a great supporter of evolution, but I'd reccommemd that people check out some of the books AListair McGrath has written is response. He's holder of a doctorate in molecular biology and also the principle of Wycliffe college, a fiarly middle-of-the-road theology college belonging to Oxford University.