![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
a good article. i hadn't realized things were this bad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html
this slashdot comment resonated with me (they're saying it's not that the journalists are bad, it's that the economic structure of the media industry is):
cost/benefit ratios (Score:5, Insightful)by SuperBanana? (662181) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:30AM (#13535426) (Last Journal: Thursday September 23, @03:18PM) > More often than not very well-trained and experienced scientists get it completely wrong.
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".)
and this one:
bshanks Preferences Subscribe Journal Logout
Sections Main Apache Apple AskSlashdot 4 more Books BSD Developers Games 4 more Hardware Interviews IT Linux Politics Science YRO 2 more Help FAQ Bugs
Stories Old Stories Old Polls Topics Hall of Fame Submit Story
About Supporters Code Awards
Services Broadband PriceGrabber Product Guide Special Offers Jobs
Bad Science in the Press [ Science ] Posted by Zonk on Sunday September 11, @11:28PM from the who-needs-perspective dept. 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.'"
bshanks (520250) bshanks bshanks2@yahoo.com (email not shown publicly) http://purl.net/net/bshanks Karma: Good Related Links
Bad Science in the Press
| Preferences | Top | 213 comments | Search Discussion |
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Science is complex. (Score:5, Interesting)
by rimu guy (665008) * Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:36PM (#13535218)
(http://rimuhosting.com/)Buy and read the New Scientist [newscientist.com] magazine. They cover complex scientific topics. And they convey them in clear (even readable) language. You will soon find that good science and good writing are not mutually exclusive.
--
VPS Hosting Anyone? [rimuhosting.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
cost/benefit ratios (Score:5, Insightful)
by SuperBanana (662181) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:30AM (#13535426)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 23, @03:18PM)
More often than not very well-trained and experienced scientists get it completely wrong.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".)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Science is complex. (Score:5, Insightful)
by kassemi (872456) Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:55PM (#13535314)
(http://www.jameskassemi.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
* 11 replies beneath your current threshold.On Teaching Science to the Media (Score:5, Interesting) by jtangen (861406) Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:35PM (#13535212) There are many efforts directed at educating scientists about the journalistic process, but fewer that aim to educate journalists about science. One of the arguments for the imbalance is that it is more efficient for scientists to learn about media constraints than it would be for journalists to learn about science. Some argue that a lack of scientific knowledge on a journalist's behalf may actually benefit their interpretation of science publications, allowing the author to be less biased when translating the information for public consumption. Others believe that introducing science journalists to the scientific process will help to correct inaccuracies and omissions of important information in the media. [ Reply to This ]
I disagree ... (Score:5, Insightful) by oostevo (736441) Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:36PM (#13535214) The author says that:
"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. [ Reply to This ]
What is willful ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
by vena (318873) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:19AM (#13535404)
...if not malice? Not to mention that, as the AC above touched on, they serve two masters -- one of whom pays their salary, and it's not you and me. It's not like there's any big backlash against their reporting of science, but as much as some of us may think we've evolved beyond it, there is still a lot of distrust, ignorance, and general animosity towards science in the world. The media exploits this for ratings, it's not a new accusation by any means. And when it keeps people ignorant, it's malicious in my book.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I disagree ... (Score:5, Interesting)
by bm_luethke (253362) Alter Relationship <luethkeb.comcast@net> on Monday September 12, @01:01AM (#13535540)
You are making the mistake many do in looking at bias - there doesn't *have* to be a coordinated effort for what the original article wrote to be true. In fact it's very very rare and usually not productive/widespread for it to be coordinated. It's too transparent.You need look no further than slashdot - it's moderation tends to be heavily biased in many topics. I can assure you (and a little looking around will confirm it if you do not already know) that there is no controlling entity that seeks to impliment this bias. Yet there is still a VERY strong bias for pretty much similar reasons through many of slashdots readers.
It's like an ant colony where there is no "hive mind" to control things. Each participant does it's thing and the whole ends up being something specific.
It can be that a very few want this and hire people who are like minded (that is usually self sustaining - you usually only hire people you think are correct). It may be that the nature of the job pushes people who think that way into the field. It may be just random chance that one day went over the saturation point - it could have went anyway and just chose that one. There are many other explaination than "Grand conspiracy" - group think happens all the time with no controlling authority or grand conspiracy.
Personally I think the original authors are correct. At least in my experiance (in real life and when I was in the university) 3/4 (and note the 3/4 - there were some very nice very broadly educated people there also) of the humanties distrusted science and journalist students were mostly humanaties people (rare person who is really interested in science but chooses to do non-science for a living - nature of the job chooses people who think that way). If they believe that to be reality, thier editors believe that to be reality, then it's just the nature of the beast.
Just as there is no grand conspiracy to make science minded people think and write that the "Earth is 4000 years old people" are crazy (and our writings are VERY biased against them because we think they are, at best, wrong), so too does the average journalist do that. That's why if you want news about science you need to look to specialised journalist - not the times, cnn, fox, abc, nbc, or whatever general news rag (and don't look at a science journal for general news - they are usually pretty poor at it).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
* 5 replies beneath your current threshold.If you want decent scientific articles.. (Score:5, Insightful) by CyricZ? (887944) Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:36PM (#13535217) .. stick with the science journals! At least there the articles will have been written by scientists, rather than mainstream media journalists. Let the everyday individual read the consumer newspaper and magazine articles, while people looking for correctness can go right to the source.
[ Reply to This ]
Applies to everything, not just science... (Score:5, Insightful) by magarity (164372) Alter Relationship on Sunday September 11, @11:38PM (#13535233) (Last Journal: Thursday October 14, @10:23AM) 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. [ Reply to This ]
Doesn't always matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
by jd (1658) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:10AM (#13535370)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 30, @01:33AM)
I'd be wary of a crime reporter who "kept current" by robbing the bank every time they went on location.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:
o How certain are the scientists of their result?
+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%.
o How well-designed was the research? (ie: How ambiguous was it?)
+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.
o Were the scientists unduly influenced? Did they have a disposition towards a certain result?
+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.
o Do the results actually say what the scientist(s) say they do?
+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.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
* 2 replies beneath your current threshold.2 things were spot on (Score:5, Insightful) by i_should_be_working (720372) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:00AM (#13535335) 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. [ Reply to This ]
Actually not that hard to understand (Score:5, Interesting) by Reality Master 101 (179095) Foe of a Friend <RealityMaster?101@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Monday September 12, @12:13AM (#13535384) (http://slashdot.org/
| Last Journal: Monday August 08, @05:41PM) |
Journalists exist to be published. That is their function -- that's what they love, to see their name in print. They don't really care what they say exactly; they only care that their article pleases their editors, which in turn sells more newspapers or magazines.
I got a real education when I lived next door to a fairly high-up Sports Illustrated reporter. In watching him do his work, he would basically try and find an angle, and then shape the facts to fit his angle. Technically, he wouldn't "lie", but he would definitely flake and form things to give the impression that he'd decided to write ahead of time. That was generally for background pieces that he would write, but even for sporting events he followed that formula. He would write his article before the event had even finished, sometimes with multiple endings in case things went for one outcome or another (this is Standard Operating Procedure in the industry).
In realizing his "algorithm" to producing articles, I began to look at other journalist articles. And lo and behold -- I saw the same sort of pattern. When you realize this, you can see the "angle" they've decided to write, and the pattern shows up like a flashing red light. All the successful ones do this. They decide ahead of time what would make an exciting article to write.
This is why people get misquoted all the time. It's because when a journalist talks to someone, they aren't interested in what that person has to say, they want specific quotes that they can use to back up whatever they are writing. [ Reply to This ]
The publication, not the college major, is the key (Score:5, Informative) by orac2 (88688) Alter Relationship on Monday September 12, @12:15AM (#13535390) 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. [ Reply to This ]
Humanics (Score:5, Insightful) by Doc Ruby (173196) Foe of a Friend on Monday September 12, @12:23AM (#13535416) (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal
| Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @02:48PM) |
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.
