Scientific Illiteracy in the Media.

[Jon_in_london]

This just about sums up how I feel about science reporting in the UK media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

Bit long but well worth a read.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
This just about sums up how I feel about science reporting in the UK media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

Bit long but well worth a read.
Very interesting and spot on.

[The idea]

Given the "bit long" warning, maybe a sample will help:

Scientists never said that tenuous small new findings were important headline news - journalists did.

Because papers think you won't understand the "science bit", all stories involving science must be dumbed down, leaving pieces without enough content [....]

Compare this with the book review section [or finance pages] in any newspaper. The [greater the number of] obscure references to Russian novelists and French philosophers [that you include in your article], the better writer everyone thinks you are. Nobody dumbs down the finance pages.

So how do the media work around their inability to deliver scientific evidence? They use authority figures, the very antithesis of what science is about, as if they were priests, or politicians, or parent figures. "Scientists today said ... scientists revealed ... scientists warned." And if they want balance, you'll get two scientists disagreeing, although with no explanation of why [...]

[Deetee]

I listen to the radio quite a lot commuting to and from work and meetings - one thing that irks me is the lack of science background in radio journalists on the BBC. One day I even heard the presenters unashamedly discussing their lack of science background, but many had degrees in other subjects, primarily based on arts subjects.

Yet as has been pointed out, these are the people who digest and transmit science news to us, who interview government ministers etc.

I have twice been interviewed on live radio- on both occasions I had the feeling that I was just being primed as a talking head to corroborate the angle/line of approach to the story the presenter had already decided upon (though this may have been more down to constraints of time and the need to get suitable sound-bites).

Media studies at colleges/university seem not to include any science base whatsoever.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Deetee
...
I have twice been interviewed on live radio- on both occasions I had the feeling that I was just being primed as a talking head to corroborate the angle/line of approach to the story the presenter had already decided upon (though this may have been more down to constraints of time and the need to get suitable sound-bites).
.. This is always the case with the news. Let it be an object lesson to all consumers of news about the nature of the product.

[Matabiri]

And as a fine example, the same newspaper also published an article in which John Sutherland interviewed Michael Behe about intelligent design (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1567967,00.html).

Who is John Sutherland? He's a professor of English literature (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/directory/request/?submit=Submit&name=john+sutherland&department=&phone=&internalphone=&email=&sort=name) at UCL. What's he doing conducting this interview, unless it's a tacit admission that the subject is not science, and thus does not require a scientifically literatue interviewer?

JS: Did Galileo come to mind?

MB: Yeah. In a way it's flattery

[cbish]

Here's a different angle to think about.
A collegue and I were discussing something similar but in a more generalized form. We were discussing the public's perception of science. Basically, science requires some work. Most people's experiences in science comes from school where often times, unfortunately, science is taught like everything else. If the teacher says it, it must be true. Therefore, most people take their understanding of science just like they take any other authoritative source of information.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Deetee
I listen to the radio quite a lot commuting to and from work and meetings - one thing that irks me is the lack of science background in radio journalists on the BBC. One day I even heard the presenters unashamedly discussing their lack of science background, but many had degrees in other subjects, primarily based on arts subjects. What irritates me is the way that ignorance of science is so often presented as a badge of honour. Ignorance of Shakespear, oh no. Social death. It's as if ignorance of science is regarded as a requirement for being cultured.

From cbish:Therefore, most people take their understanding of science just like they take any other authoritative source of information.The hoi polloi expect scientists to be like priests - any question, one answer. When scientists say "To the best of our knowledge, this, but then again, maybe that ..." they throw their hands up and believe whatever they wanted to believe in the first place. "I don't believe in evolution", "I don't believe in Global Warming", "I don't believe in vaccination".

And when you point out their ignorance, they blame scientists for it. :mad:

[The idea]

Actual Expert Too Boring For TV (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39473)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by The idea
Actual Expert Too Boring For TV (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39473) That's a spoof. Right?

RIGHT????

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
This just about sums up how I feel about science reporting in the UK media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

Bit long but well worth a read.

It's not just a UK problem. :(

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rolfe
That's a spoof. Right?

RIGHT????

Rolfe.

It's the Onion, so good chance it is. :)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rolfe
That's a spoof. Right?

RIGHT???? Well, I think so, but as with all good spoofs there's more than a grain of truth there. Unfortunately.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Mojo
Well, I think so, but as with all good spoofs there's more than a grain of truth there. Unfortunately. Well, yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. I mean, it's so extreme it reads 99% like a spoof, but it cuts so near the bone there's a little bit of you that just wonders....

Rolfe.

[tsg]

This is the case with any science news story: If it's news, it hasn't been around long enough to be verified. If it has been verified, it's too old to be news.

Without fail, every study I've read from a science news story ends with the conclusion "more research is necessary".

[drkitten]

Originally posted by cbish
Here's a different angle to think about.
A collegue and I were discussing something similar but in a more generalized form. We were discussing the public's perception of science. Basically, science requires some work. Most people's experiences in science comes from school where often times, unfortunately, science is taught like everything else. If the teacher says it, it must be true. Therefore, most people take their understanding of science just like they take any other authoritative source of information.

I'm not convinced that this is actually a problem. Science requires work, but it's not unique in requiring work. Math, literature, engineering, history, and so forth, also require work. And for areas of science outside of my immediate expertise (where I have access to primary data and can replicate experiments if appropriate), I will take the word of authoritative sources (with due regard to the possibility that the source might be wrong for some reasons), but that's also true of other questions. How do I get from Paris to Amsterdam? (Check the "authoritative" map?) What's the population of Hong Kong? (Check the "authoritative" CIA factbook.) When was Hamlet published? (Check the "authoritative" scholarly edition.) What's the melting point of copper? (Check the "authoritative" CRC.)

I think the problem is more fundamental. People don't "take their understanding of science just like they take any other authoritative source of information." People don't "take their understanding of science" at all. Ignorant, nihilistic, skepticism of science is regarded as a badge of honor, the same way that upper-class twits will regard it as a badge of honor that they never listen to "that kind of music" or watch "that kind of tv" or read "that sort of book."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by The idea
Scientists never said that tenuous small new findings were important headline news - journalists did.


A comment on this part.

In fact, he is making a mistake here. Those "tenuous small new findings" that make the headline news are not things that journalists discovered or thought were important. They result from press releases, usually put out by the scientists themselves, and the journalists publish it because they think it is sufficiently interesting for their readers. Of course, it has to be written in a way that the journalists find satisfying, but this usually comes from the release in the first place.

That's where stories about tenuous small new findings come from, not from great or even lousy investigative journalism.

I'm speaking from experience here. I've been there, done that. Never again.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I think the problem is more fundamental. People don't "take their understanding of science just like they take any other authoritative source of information." People don't "take their understanding of science" at all. Ignorant, nihilistic, skepticism of science is regarded as a badge of honor, the same way that upper-class twits will regard it as a badge of honor that they never listen to "that kind of music" or watch "that kind of tv" or read "that sort of book."

Upper-class twits?

Just go to, for example, the entertainment forum here.

I have never understand why hating something that a large number of people like is considered such a virtue. Why is being popular such a bad thing?

Artists are called sellouts for making music or movies that everyone likes. What's the alternative? Making music that most people don't like? Hell, anyone can do that...

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Upper-class twits?

Just go to, for example, the entertainment forum here.

I have never understand why hating something that a large number of people like is considered such a virtue. Why is being popular such a bad thing?

Artists are called sellouts for making music or movies that everyone likes. What's the alternative? Making music that most people don't like? Hell, anyone can do that...
I follow you there: I try to judge something based on its actual merits, not the presence or absence of popularity. I hate when commercials advertise something's popularity, though. "Yeah. It's popular. But is it good?"

When trying to determine whether or not I should try something, popularity is a small strike against it. So I'm not perfect at following my philosophy.

If your an artist/writer/whatever: Do what you like. If it becomes popular, enjoy the fame. Just remember that popularity should be regarded as a side bonus, not a goal.

---
But back to scientific illiteracy: Somewhere I recall an astronomer tracking a meteor and calculated an impact with Earth. He emailed a request to verify using more precise measurements and calculations. Media got a hold of the email and started doomsaying before the better (and negative) calculations came in.

[ungoliant]

the sad thing is most people get their science facts from the media and this type of 'pop' science.

i have no end of debunking myths almost every day. i like science and i like to talk science and when i do the ignorance of people is astounding. it's like i am living in the middle ages.

and they are so self righteous about what they think they know. it's like: i saw it on tv, so it must be true.

frustrating.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I follow you there: I try to judge something based on its actual merits, not the presence or absence of popularity. I hate when commercials advertise something's popularity, though. "Yeah. It's popular. But is it good?"

When trying to determine whether or not I should try something, popularity is a small strike against it. So I'm not perfect at following my philosophy.

If your an artist/writer/whatever: Do what you like. If it becomes popular, enjoy the fame. Just remember that popularity should be regarded as a side bonus, not a goal.


But I don't know why it shouldn't be a goal? What's wrong with trying to create something that a lot of people like?

I'll admit that I don't like everything popular, but that's a matter of taste. I do like some popular stuff (I do like Kelly Clarkson, for example). OTOH, I'm not embarrassed to admit it. If you don't like Kelly Clarkson, good for you, but don't pretend you are better because of it.

I also like a lot of stuff non-popular. For example, I am a big fan of the old crooners, guys like Sinatra, Martin, Crosby, Humperdink. I listen to them, you do what you want.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

People reject science because they don't like its conclusion. They want now to be as good as possible and the future to be as marvelous as they imagine. This does not include imagining that dying is nothing more than a prelude to worm food. This is one reason why most people are fine with technology, but not with the underlying science.

Nicholas Humphrey has lots of interesting things to say about this in Leaps of Faith.

~~ Paul