Why the Media Screws Up Science

[Coito ergo sum]

They do - all the time. My theory has been that journalists just aren't that bright, and are not well educated on technical issues.

Here is what potholer54 thinks - he has a more nuanced idea:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5T ... ture=feedu[/youtube]

[Ronja]

Based on a sister and a brother-in-law who have both worked as journalists and now teach journalism in colleges/universities: A part of the problem is that the phrase "both sides of the story" is used more or less automatically - without reflection, that is - and daily in various journalism programs' classes.

By the teachers.

.

[Woodbutcher]

Journalists try to illustrate both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, quite often the other view is not scientific but politically influenced, and is still given equal weight.

[Mr.Samsa]

My theory has been that journalists just aren't that bright, and are not well educated on technical issues.

Indeed, I think the most important point is the one made at the end of the video - that in most newspapers or magazines, science stories aren't written by people with a background in science, or even checked by someone with a background in science. In no other area would this be accepted: you wouldn't have someone who knows nothing about sports writing the sports section, or someone who knows nothing about art writing the arts and culture section.

And the "balance" thing is a big issue too, one that Brian Cox likes to discuss:



Where he discusses the idea that "balance" does not mean equal time or weight given to each side, but rather an accurate representation of the debate must be presented. So in a discussion on autism, the journalist could point out that some people find it controversial, but then they should point out that the entirety of science dismisses their claims. This would be fair and balanced, even if 99% of the article is dedicated to demolishing the ridiculousness of the antivax claims. The clip also includes a segment by Ben Goldacre, who discusses problems with science reporting often on his blog, and his book by the same name: "Bad Science".

[Tero]

I once heard an radio interview of a chemist I knew. The interviewer decided to retape her questions to make it more interesting. With her reworded questions the interview was complete nonsense. I could, however, have rewritten it to what the questions were the first time around. If you listened to him alone it made sense.

[Pappa]

I once read an article in the Independent about how the quality of science journalism was crap. On the facing page was an article about "evolution in reverse".

[Animavore]

The Daily Fail is one of the biggest offenders.

Here's their list of things that give you cancer.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297

[JimC]

Students who fail my science courses either become lawyers, politicians or science journalists...

At least the lawyers have standards...

[Mysturji]

The Daily Fail is one of the biggest offenders.

Here's their list of things that give you cancer.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297

But that's GOOD news!
Because everything else CURES cancer! (As every Daily Fail reader knows. )