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.'"
"It is my hypothesis that in their choice of stories, and the way they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their own means. They then attack this parody as if they were critiquing science. This week we take the gloves off and do some serious typing."
Granted my sample space of random, anecdotal evidence is probably much smaller than his, but he seems to attribute the poor reporting to some sort of grand conspiracy, or at least malice.
From what I've seen of bad science reporting (my professors often give examples in lecture for us to laugh at), the cause is nowhere near as malevolent -- it's simply writers who are not educated enough about science and the methods of discovery that surround it trying to simplify for their readers a scientific breakthrough like they'd simplify a speech or debate.
And they just don't understand it anywhere near enough to avoid cropping out hugely important parts.
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
and that's about it.
You can't handle the truth.
Reporters who have never touched a rifle report on the military, reporters who grew up in the city report on farming, reporters who never broke a sweat at heavy labor report on construction projects...
Actually, this is a lot like public primary education where teachers without specialties in any field teach specific specialty classes.
On the other hand, I've seen a number of liberals who buy into crystals, magnets, feng shui, chiropracty and all other sorts of nonsense, and that sort of thing is just as harmful as anything any Young Earth Creationist or Intelligent Design advocate is going to pass off as Truth.
Don't you think science education is best served by keeping psuedo-science and barely veiled religious dogma out of the classroom?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't worry. Science will still progress. It will just be in places like China and Europe, where actual scientific progress and achievement is considered more important than appealing to everybody's religious belief system.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This reminds me a of a Simpsons episode were Lisa Simpson steals all the Teachers Editions of the school books. Without the teachers editions, none of the teachers had any answers.
The point? As a teacher who is dependent upon a book to give them the answers is not really much of a teacher; neither is a journalist that does learn the facts about what they are reporting. Readers do expect them to be experts but we certainly do not expect them to be totally dependent upon sources of dubious value or insight.
In high school I did some work with the Air Force Research Labs (they had some sort of student research program, which gave me access to loads of equipment and funding I would have gotten in no other way. We were working with aberration correction on optical equipment with holograms. A newspaper in the area sent a reporter to gather some information and write an article about what we were doing. We sat down with prepared diagrams, interesting samples and simple explainations as we gave notes to what seemed like a very intelligent reporter. The next week we read the article, and the reporter had missed everything entirely. They made it seem as if we had been doing research into a brand new field which we had invented. It gave us a warm feeling inside, but was obviously wrong. Mainstream news today isn't concerned with giving us accuracy, but rather about stirring the public, and keeping them asking questions that only their sources can answer. The only way to get accurate news in the science field we need to review the scientist's own, peer-reviewed papers. And even then, we need to be very skeptical until we see the research become popularly accurate.
What the hell's a "gewie?"
About 80% of the zines on the stands are owned by just a half dozen publishers these days. Their job is to sell zines, not benefit scientific understanding, unless their readership has some decided and saleable interest.
Journalists, bless them, aren't often scientifically trained. Look at the poor quality of the computer industry zines of the late 90's and early 00's. Most them are gone, and good riddance, These guys were better at covering sports than bus architectures and burgeoning CPU and OS monopolies. Getting scientists to write cogent articles for people that aren't buying an academic/discipline article is really tough. They get no recognition for that, just some cash. Only a few scientists can cross over to mainstream writing and be successful more than their research career gave them. So, there's a good reason why we don't get good science writing: publishers don't understand the need for quality; researchers are busy publishing in journals within their disciplines, and journalists make rotten scientists-- but better beer drinkers.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
1) 'Breakthroughs' overhyped as if they're about to change everything. We see this all the time on /. 'Breakthrough in quantum-computing/ nanotechnology/ quantum-cryptography' The stories are overhyped 'cause it gets readers. Then here we get a bunch of armchair scientists hypothesising about the terahertz fast, petabyte large, unhackable computer everyone will have next year.
2) The media focusing on one or two scientists as if they have the ultimate say in how things are. Ignoring the fact that scientists aren't some monolithic beast with one scientist at the head.
A science reporter doesn't have to know the subject, but they DO need to know how to do critical thinking. (Which, IMHO, is important for any journalist who wants to have integrity.)
Most importantly, they need to know:
Statistics will usually be given with a percentage, which indicates the highest confidence level that can be given to the results. Because of the curious nature of statistics, these are given as the area of the tail on the stats chart, not the body, so the LOWER the percentage the better. A 5% confidence limit is generally regarded as evidence of a total LACK of confidence. You really want 1% or better. You'll see some results, though, with a confidence limit of 10% or even 20%.
The "null hypothesis" (what you are trying to disprove) should be something clearly-defined, with well-known bounds. It's preferable that the "null hypothesis" is whatever would be either whatever the system would naturally gravitate towards, or the norm, whichever you know better.
In non-statistical studies, you use basically the same method. You assume that whatever you are testing shows nothing at all different, and attempt to falsify this hypothesis. It is extremely dangerous to go looking for something specific, because you'll normally find it - even when it's not there.
You can pay a scientist - or anyone else - to say anything you like, if you've enough money. What they say, then, is important only if they have credibility as an impartial observer. As most science, these days, is funded by corporations, this is unbelievably scarce. However, paid-for work has zero credibility unless it can be verified by an impartial observer. At which point, it is still the impartial observer who matters, anyway.
This one is hard to guague, if you're not in the field, but you can look for tell-tale signs of a problem. If you can't see the methods used, if they didn't keep logs or lab notes of what they did, if they are vague about how you get from the data to the conclusions - these should tip off any competent journalist that something isn't right.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The real problem is the perpetuation of a war between "science" and "humanities" students/grads/researchers/writers. Even this Guardian article points its (stereotypical) criticism at "humanities" people, implicitly defending "science" people. Humanities writers, including many "social scientists" like historians (and especially the underlooked lawyers in that class), are just as antipathetic.
The division itself is a disservice to each profession. Scientists have to communicate science with humans, even other scientists. And humanities workers, even mere newpaper reporters, are governed by physical laws of evidence, causality, statistics. We're all in it together. And we all have to realize that we've each got our own languages, from mathematics to hiphop, that are just ways of representing the real world we're all struggling to understand and share with each other. Prioritizing one of those aspects is no excuse for neglecting competence in another. And seeing the struggle as scientist against humanist discards the real struggle, against misunderstanding and ignorance, thereby working for the enemy.
--
make install -not war
GOOD scientists don't purposefully make statements that are absolute. Good scientists are guarded and pick their words carefully.
That said, somebody with a minimal scientific background (ie. a Journalism major) will very often screw up more complicated scientific articles.
Quite on the contrary. It is the same reason you only get reports about murders and status updates on Bennifer- media, on all levels (at least in the US) is owned increasingly by large holding groups. Holding groups do one thing well: try to squeeze every penny.
Scientific articles require more legwork, and that means fewer stories per person per day. "Entertainment" stories practically pay for themselves (free plane tickets, free hotel stays, free footage, free access to a popular star). Murders are easy to cover- listen to the scanner, show up and stand there for the live-on-scene footage, maybe interview a hysterical family member or friend. Tada, done. Celebs and blood sell; nerdy stories that are hard to research won't.
Science also doesn't jive with the "cover all viewpoints" they teach in journalism 101 (case and point, "intelligent design" vs. Evolution. Evolution is something the church gave up on decades ago, and the rest of the world knows is fact- but the American press feels "Intelligent Design" deserves presentation on equal grounds and parrots the President when he says it deserves "consideration".)
Please help metamoderate.
Let's see if this is right: 1) Michael Crichton's remarks on science in the media should be required reading/hearing. 2) Intelligent design, which is predicated on the assumption that nothing is knowable (the acceptance of extra-natural forces in nature rejects the knowability of all natural science), is of equivalent validity to global warming (as Crichton tried to argue in his last bit of pandering pulp). The difference between the two theories, besides the fact that they are often on different sides of a political divide in America (no doubt the reason you chose them as your examples), is that one of them is science, the other is fundamentally un-science. Intelligent design is not only unproven, it is un-provable and also not dis-provable. Global warming, while still a topic of debate among a certain fringe, is as scientific in its predictions and foundations as any environmental science can be. While many physicists and the like may look down on environmental science, they'll be wishing they'd listended a little more closely when their coastal homes get destroyed.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
This is something that has bugged me about the media. There is an anti-Christian and anti-South portrayal in nearly all popular media and all news stories. If you go to a Southern town in a movie, there will be rednecks with pickup trucks and getting into barfights or beating their wives. Christians are the punchlines of jokes, and their beliefs are actively mocked and parodied. The media is also anti-father. You rarely find a good father figure in movies or television or news stories. Either he's non-existent, or he's a deadbeat who left years ago, or a wifebeater, etc.
The media is also extremely racist, though they'd never fathom it. If a white girl disappears, it's national news. Lots of peopel disappear in our nation, but heaven forbid the white blonde girl in Aruba go missing. Meanwhile, a black girl could disappear, and no journalists would be around to cover it (see little black girl Rilya Wilson who just disappeared without a trace in Florida, who only Bill O'Reilly of all people covered).
I'm not from the South and I'm not a Christian, but these biases, which are just silently accepted by everyone because they're used to seeing them, make me sick. I'm just tired of it. I wish there were clear, direct, independent journalists to get some ACTUAL NEWS OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. Not ratings-makers. I don't want to hear about "day 10 of Camp Casey." Please, tell me what is going on in the world. I know there is more out there.
"Sufferin' succotash."
One reason (I'll let you decide if it's a good one) is that it can be used as a bridging point to talk to non-astrophysicists about what you do.
You can say you're studing gamma emissions at some location described by a bunch of numbers and letter (I have no idea how it's described, actually), or instead you say, "near the handle of the Big Dipper".
Sure, for the person you're talking to, they don't have any more real/useful information. But you've helped connect what you know to something they know, and from a PR point of view, that's more useful than you might imagine.
Part of the problem described in the article is that lay-people and scientist are separated by media that do a poor job of communicating between the two.
So, for that reason, I would say it's not a bad thing for an astrophysicist to know the constellations. Because while it has no real relevance to their work, it serves as a common context that serves as a bridge between them and everyone else.
"reporters usually avoided math and science"
Yes, but it seems to me that sometimes the scientists themselves give misleading information to journalists, possibly to make their work seem more important. Here's an example: Effort to Create Virtual Brain Begins. Here's another far worse example, in my opinion: Can Cell Phones Damage Our Eyes?. Here's my opinion about Dr. Henry Lai of the University of Washington: Distinguish between real science and junk science.
Also, it seems to me that editors take advantage of readers by encouraging mis-interpretation so that they can get more readers. Here's an example of a story that didn't deserve attention: Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women.
One beef I have with your (relatively well thought out) post:
Upwords of 90% of the USA claims to be Christian. Many of our national holidays are Christian-based. Christians control all three branches of our federal government, and most state and local governments. Christian symbolism, including churches, crosses, billboards with Christian messages, etc., appear almost everywhere in the country virtually unopposed.
I don't think it's fair to complain about Christians being the butt of a few jokes. I wish my particular religious group was this persecuted.
Jon Stewart totally skewered the "Oh, we Christians are so persecuted myth" when mock-opined, "and maybe someday we'll have a Christian president. Or 43 of them consecutively."
Maybe if Christians aren't smart enough to realize that they are the government and they are the media, they deserve some persecution.