How Journalists Distort Science with Balance

The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately. Why are these two professions so often at odds? Chris Mooney discusses how journalism fails science in this month's Columbia Journalism Review. If you applauded Jon Stewart's plea to "stop hurting America," Mooney's analysis will strike a chord; the he-said-she-said approach to truth fails in all kinds of venues. (via: WorldChanging)

Fake Science episode of This American Life

[The I Shing]

This reminds me of This American Life episode 265 [207.70.82.73], from May of this year, entitled Fake Science, which includes, in Act Four, "Fake science can be fun. Fake science can make people happy," which I think would make an excellent t-shirt iron-on. In Act One of the show, a reporter gets into a delightfully heated exchange with a Bush Administration wonk who defends the appointment of a highly dubious lead industry shill to a prominent position on a federal commission on lead safety, while genuine experts get passed over. You can almost hear the vein throbbing on the guy's forehead when the reporter catches him a flagrant lie about the appointee's ties to the lead industry. Have a listen... it's free.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[cafn8ed]

To get straight to the good stuff, fast-forward to 23:00 (minutes:seconds)

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[twiddlingbits]

Off topic, mod down. The article talks about how irresponsible journalists present fringe science as proven facts. In the scienftic world you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists). These folks are often outspoken but cannot produce facts to back up their position. There there are the legitimate contrarians who really are onto something but it's not accepted practice and all they get is bad press. Unless you do your own research it's hard to tell which is which the way it's reported in the papers and magazines.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[Anonymous Coward]

In the scienftic world you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists).

Uh, no, it's not the journalists' agendas which match the fringe scientists. The fringe scientists in question tend to be anti-abortion, anti-climate-change, and anti-evolution. How does that fit in with the media's so-called "liberal bias"?

No, it's their requirement to "tell both sides of the story" which is the problem: their editors insist they find someone who disagrees with mainstream science, and they then tend to present both views as "equally valid".

But if you'd RTFA, you'd know that...

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[mgs1000]

The fringe scientists in question tend to be anti-abortion, anti-climate-change...

So are most scientists pro-climate-change?

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[king-manic]

Sorry to break it to you but american media does nto have a "liberal" bias. To the rest fo the world, even your CNN has a "rightwind" bias. Thats how we perceive you. It might be that your so right wing that even blantantly right wing media seems lefty.

Main stream science is rarly even covered, it's always fringe science that gets press.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[NoOneInParticular]

Interesting take on this, but do tell, what other nation outside of the US thinks the US media portrayal of events is even remotely centrist?

I've been thinking hard, but indeed Western Europe doesn't qualify, neither does Canada, New Zealand, nor Australia. Russia doesn't have free press (nor does Italy), Brazil and the rest of South American nation as so far they have a free press seem to be more left-wing than Europe. Eastern Europe loves their new-found freedom but are still very socialist. Which leaves Africa, the Arab countries, Japan, Persia, India and China who probably view CNN as an American propaganda machine.

Thus, as far as I can see, the US media landscape is globally seen as a complete right-wing outlier.

That's not journalism

[DeadVulcan]

you can find some folks with very outlandish views who have been proven wrong, but the views they have often seem to appeal to those with certain agendas (like journalists).

Whoa, wait a minute. I hope there aren't very many journalists with agendas, 'cuz that would make them activists, not journalists.

But I guess that just depends on how cynical you are...

Journalism = activism with a fancy name

[CarrionBird]

I'd rather have reporters than journalists myself.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[Ignignot]

Unless you do your own research it's hard to tell which is which the way it's reported in the papers and magazines.

That is the whole point of the article! Journalists are forced to produce a balanced view of an issue where only one view has any real credibility! And then after awhile, the view that shouldn't have any credibility has achieved some simply because it gets mentioned by reporters. No wonder why our election was so close, why we can't decide anything anymore. It takes something like the WTC attack for people to agree - and I for one don't want it to cost that much every single time we have to get together on something.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[prell]

Journalism is good at reporting breaking news; facts, and it's in the interest of a journalist to do this as quickly as possible. The myriad sciences often cannot be approached this way; it's irresponsible, and there's usually nothing shocking -- or, many times, relatable -- about good science. In fact, I'd argue that journalists have done more for popularizing the doomsaying "global warming" arguments than even the entirety climatologists and their data over the past century could ever do.

Re:Fake Science episode of This American Life

[hpulley]

Sometimes the news lets us down, then again there is a lot of bad science out there. Funny how the science "facts" depend on who is funding the research.

Well, you have to make sure the grant providers get their money's worth. The problem with how the grants are given out is that prospective projects are listed with hypothesis, expected conclusions and practical implications. It is difficult to get funding if no one wants your expected conclusions to come out. Almost no one is doing science just to see what might happen; accidental discoveries do happen but only by serendipity, not by paying scientists to simply explore. Coming to different conclusions is alright but the 'file drawer problem' means studies which 'successfully' show a view are more likely to be published than those which are unsuccessful.

Re:The Politics of Science

[mbrother]

While I wouldn't disagree that scientists are people and have their own particular biases, and that the game of science is certainly politically (in the general sense) I have to call crap on a lot of this woefully biased rant.

You're basically saying scientists are a bunch of leftist commie pinko fags, or words to that effect, so they are not to be believed. Yeah, everyone should believed that biased statement. At least scientists support their ideas with experiment.

The parent post makes the claim, without direct experience or other support in evidence, that only scientists proposing to advance "popular" notions get funded. That's pure bunk.

First off, what is "popular" in science is often popular because of large amounts of evidence that it is right. Should we spend millions of dollars on a project to show that the Earth is actually flat despite the "popularity" of other ideas? No, of course not. That would be stupid, not political.

Do some scientists perhaps torpedo competing points of view on review panels? Yeah, but not as much as the parent post seems to think. And when it does happen, it's usually a personal issue and not a political one.

The thing about SCIENCE, as opposed to scientists, is that it is apolitical. It's self-correcting. Tobacco companies funded their own pocket scientists at ridiculous levels, and science still managed to conclude that smoking is bad for people. Science also managed to conclude that continental drift happens, even though the idea was very unpopular.

I get upset when non-scientists rant about science in an uninformed way. The linked article was really great, coming from a non-scientist who had done some research. The parent post says "I am an agnostic on the Global Warming question because I know that the science is so screwed up I can't believe ANY of it" -- how does this non-scientist poster "know" this? There has been lots of research, and the majority of scientists in the field are not agnostic about it; they chracterize their uncertainty, quantitatively when possible.

Scientists LOVE to fund "unpopular" ideas when the proposers provide some evidence that they might be right. Overturning popular ideas is how new knowledge is developed. We actually don't like to fund refinements to standard models ad infinitum.

Now going back to my NSF proposal due Monday, especially worrying about how to play up its innovative aspects, which is a large part of the grading criteria.

Re:The Politics of Science

[mbrother]

I didn't say that scientists aren't frought with human frailties. I cleared stated they are, so why do you claim otherwise? Why lie about what I said just a few lines above?

I claimed that SCIENCE as an establishment is self-correcting and, in the long-term, unbiased. The media hyped up cold fusion, which is one of the things the linked article is all about, and the scientists themselves used a press conference to announce their results rather than a peer-reviewed journal. The vast majority of scientists didn't believe the claims and awaited experimental verification. That's how and why science works.

Over the long-haul, mountains of observational data will crush weak, but politically supported, scientific positions.

Are fradulent claims bad for science? Sure. Are they common? No way. Do they get smacked down when they can't be supported? Yes.

Re:The Politics of Science

[mbrother]

I tend to agree with "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." There is a certain percentage of scientists who get locked-on certain ideas and never change them despite new evidence, and later generations don't have a problem. That would seem to set the long-term upper limit at something like 35 years, the typically length of a scientific career. Still, they tend to be brushed aside long before they die and provide some friction, rather than a wall, to advancement.

I'd still claim that science moves a lot faster than politics or philosophy, and certainly some fields of science move lightning fast.

In my specialty, astronomy, we're to a great extent technology limited. Every major new advance in detector or instrument technology can mean dramatic new results. For instance, in the last ten years we've learned of over a hundred extrasolar planets when before we knew of none. We also learned that the universal expansion is accelerating, most likely the result of "dark energy" which we didn't even know existed. We've learned not only how to detect black holes in other galaxies, we've been able to measure their masses. And there are lots of other things as well, perhaps not so important, but that could become important.

How exactly has our understaning of philosophy or politics advanced in the last ten years>

Re:The Politics of Science

[MilenCent]

Exactly. And the bigger problem is science is highly politicized. So it would be great if journalists put some effort into debunking bad science, but then most journalists are just as biased and in the same way.

Oh, really? That would explained how the mainstream media has allowed the Bush administration, and campaign, to blithely lie about so many things. But don't take my word for it, take Dick Cheney's (corrected) word: http://www.factcheck.org/

Yeah, Kerry's campaign did it too (though not as much).

Re:The Politics of Science

[NoOneInParticular]

Not at all. I claim bias in the media because they state as settled fact things very much in dispute, like Global Warming, they report the claims of left leaning groups as fact and the claims of the right as "claims from the right wing thinktank.....". And so on and so on.

Global warming is mostly in dispute because it is (a) not an immediate consequence of Newtonian laws, the only stuff regarded as being completely true, and (b) politically highly inconvenient, as no-one likes this. The theory of global

Re:The Politics of Science

[raju1kabir]

Personally, I am an agnostic on the Global Warming question because I know that the science is so screwed up I can't believe ANY of it.

Thank you for finally speaking the truth. People are so blind today. They get so snowed by all the big words and fancy college degrees that they don't take a step back to see what a bunch of crap science really is.

In addition to global warming, due to how screwed up science is, I also don't believe in microbes, magnetism, or the biggest communist conspiracy of them all: gravity.

The more you know about ANYTHING

[Anonymous Coward]

The more you realize journalists are wrong. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the vast majority of journalists have no clue what they're talking about. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Once you realize they're wrong about things you know, it leaves everything else they say about subjects you're less familiar with in doubt.

Re:The more you know about ANYTHING

[Dashing Leech]

The more you realize journalists are wrong.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are always wrong, they are just in over their heads in many cases where they are trying to explain something they don't understand or are from outside the field being explained so they don't understand all of the issues (like what is "real" versus "pseudo-" science).

I certainly wouldn't take a news story as the source of knowledge on a subject. But I do use them to indicate "Hey, something interesting happened related to X" and then go and research the details at the source myself. (Of course this doesn't really work with recent world events because journalists are often the only source of information in that case.)

The dangers of bread!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading this article a while ago.

A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "SMELL OF BAKED BREAD MAY BE HEALTH HAZARD." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up).

I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?

Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice ....

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat, actually begged for bread after only two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to harder items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.

Remember: Think globally, act idiotically.

Re:The more you know about ANYTHING

[tdemark]

I think it's pretty funny that in an article about balance versus truth, the author does exactly what he says journalists shouldn't do: ...human greenhouse gas emissions are probably ... helping to fuel the greenhouse effect...

When people talk of "global warming", they are talking about a net increase in the Greenhouse Effect, not the effect itself. Unfortunately, most media outlets use "global warming" and "Greenhouse Effect" interchangeably, causing the widespread belief that the GE is bad.

In reality, the greenhouse effect is a good thing. Without it, we would all be dead as average temperature of the Earth would be about 30 deg C cooler.

When the author says "humans may be helping fuel the Greenhouse Effect", while technically accurate, casts a negative implication on the GE, when what he really meant was "humans may be helping fuel global warming".

- Tony

Re:The more you know about EVERYTHING

[Concerned Onlooker]

Isn't it funny how people in other professions are just plain wrong while people in your profession are well informed and insightful?

Isn't it odd how everyone else is an idiot while you're full of understanding about the world?

Isn't it interesting how all journalists are wrong and that anyone sitting behind a computer has more insight into what's right all the time?

Yes, journalists make mistakes. Probably not as often as you think. On the other hand, perhaps they make mistakes as often as programmers d

Re:It's a problem with Journalistic training

[Concerned Onlooker]

Jounalists should be REQUIRED to master highschool level science. Otherwise they are a social hazard.

And science/engineering related majors should be required to minor in sociology/psychology. Otherwise they are a social hazard. Yes, it's always the other professions that need regulating, isn't it?

Re:The more you know about ANYTHING

[mbrother]

And many journalists decide what their story is going to be about before they do their research, which was a nice point about the linked article. They decided it's going to be about a black and white issue, and then shove everything into one of those two boxes. Or they decide my brother collected comic books to pay for college (true newspaper story, but not true).

I've had a few of my discoveries covered in the newspapers and even TV. They usually don't get them right, despite every effort. It kind of

Re:Because they're human

[CmdrGravy]

It must be lonely being such a genius.

I am going to learn up hard about the problems that could bring.

Re:Because they're human

[mbrother]

This is a nasty, unsupported statement. Journalists are trained to assimilate information fast, and to write well and fast. They aren't trained to be experts on all subjects, and they suffer from a changing landscape in which they must be more generalists. How many newspapers have dedicated science reporters these days? Not many. And those that do tend to have a single science reporter, as opposed to a team of reporters with expertise in different areas of science.

Scientists, on the other hand, focus

Re:Politics and the media

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Rush and the rest of the AM radio wonks are 'media' too. So is Fox News.

2. The North Vietnamese were 'terrorists'? They were a fucking country you dope. Only under Bush are all enemies 'terrorists'.

3. You're posting on Slashdot, you're a Slashdotter too.

You're lack of thinking is living proof of Orwell's thoughts on language.

And that's why....

[GillBates0]

...I've increasingly come to believe Southpark and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart offer a more realistic and balanced view of current affairs.

It's a pity most people still consider Fox25 the "most reliable news source". And maybe it is too...as long as you're mostly concerned with the social lives of celebrities and your neighborhood pet accidents.

Re:And that's why....

[theMerovingian]

...I've increasingly come to believe Southpark and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart offer a more realistic and balanced view of current affairs.

While Fox and CNN aren't the best, you have other alternatives than the Comedy Channel...

The NYT, the BBC, Al-jazeera, Haaretz, the Washington Post, and Bloomberg all offer news from a variety of perspectives. You won't be able to tap into any one source and get an objective look at current events, but if you look at things from a variety of perspectives you should be able to make a pretty clear picture.

I can guarantee you that the army of writers propping up South Park and the Daily Show do this in order to formulate their opinion on world events.

Re:And that's why....

[king-manic]

The NYT and Washington Post both lean a good bit to the left in thier reporting. I read the Washington Post, right after reading the Wall Street Journal. Thats what I call "fair and balanced". Between the two of them I think I get a decent summary of whats happening in the world

Read a canadian mcleans magazine after and you'll think the others are right wing in comparison. And it's true. Your commie bastards are our right wing nuts.

Re:And that's why....

[Bastian]

You would think that Fox News's credibility would have been blown to pieces after this [relfe.com] came out.

Guess not.

Oh well.

Re:And that's why....

[Bastian]

At least CBS corrected themselves and apologized. Fox publicly stated that they should be able to deliberately misinform the public, and took that issue through the courts.

Re:And that's why....

[Bastian]

Just do a web search for "fox akre" and you'll find a huge pile of sources.

Basically, Fox TV fired a reporter for threatening to expose them for reporting false information in a story about rBGH. The reporter sued and won, but Fox appealed and the case was overturned.

If you want the original source, you can view the court's opinion at http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/ 2D01-529.pdf [2dca.org] Unfortunately, the document is not really all that applicable - the case was decided not on whether or not it is okay to lie in the broadcast media, but based on a technicality having to do with whether or not the FCC policy against truth distortion applies to whistleblower laws.

Technicalities aside, the big issue here is that a Fox affiliate got away with silencing a reporter.

Because sarcasm can make you think clearly

[acomj]

There was a dilbert in which Dilbert tells dogbert he's thinking of getting acupuncture. Dogbert says "the theory here is pooking yourself with needles make you feel better."

Dilbert "When you put it like that it sounds stupid"

Dogbert "sometimes sarcasm can make you think more clearly"

Its true of news too

Not just Science

[JoshuaDFranklin]

Back in the 60's, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said of segregation, "The biggest enemy we have today in America is the public secular news media." They would report the two sides for or against segregation, which was really an argument for the status quo.

Re:Not just Science

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you report a commonly respected view and a view of a whacko .. A reader has no idea what the view of 95% of of the scientists are .. cause the whacko's view appears with equal footing.

Re:Not just Science

[swb]

So who gets to decide that "the other side" doesn't have a legitimate argument for a specific issue? Who is the arbiter of the veracity of one side's claim, if not the court of public opinion?

Segregation was long-standing social, legal and political *institution*, and despite King's complaints about the media, it's almost entirely (except in the minds of a select few) disappeared from American life, both as an institution and as a point of advocacy.

Perhaps it might have been overcome more quickly if the media had simply ignored the claims of those in favor of it, but what happens when the media does that with something like Iraq, Terrorism or some other issue where the claim that apparently lacks moral superiority is merely dismissed?

Re:Not just Science

[ryantate]

Yes, we're talking science -- not politics. The aggregate opinions of the community have no bearing on the issue. Data does.

From Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton [sepp.org]:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he
or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

"In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is
nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

"In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following
childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon
of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was
able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes
claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary
techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his
management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him
from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the
start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and
twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of
the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and
ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

"There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of
thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra.
The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary
was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young
investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded
that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ
theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through
diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the
blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other
volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and
swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called
"Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus
continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social
factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because
it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until
the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took
years to see the light.

"Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit
together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the
continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental
drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great
names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what
any schoolchild sees.

"And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and
smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory,
fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus
errors goes on and on. "

Re:Not just Science

[Avumede]

Does anyone really take that Crichton essay seriously? i love how he attempts to dispute decades of intensive research in Global Warming by a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo. I think he doesn't understand what true skepticism is.

Re:Not just Science

[antiMStroll]

What he ignores is that the consensus now says "yes" to all his examples and that's why they're now considered valid science. Breaking with consensus is a tool towards forging a new consensus, it doesn't undermine the principle of consensus.

Re:Not just Science

[quisph]

The problem is that for every Alexander Gordon who turns out to be right, there's another scientist, going against the consensus, who turns out to be wrong. Crichton has the benefit of hindsight for making his points, but this is no help to a science journalist covering a new idea. Sometimes it's the consensus that's wrong, and the new idea that's right; but probably more often it's the other way around. I'm curious as to how this winds up being perceived as the journalist's fault, for not being omniscient.

The Rise of Stupid Contrarians

[Ars-Fartsica]

Global warming, the Scott Peterson trial etc etc...the apparent and inherent need for "balance" has convinced people that there are always two sides to a debate, hence there is no objectivity, only subjectivity.

In reality its the rise of the stupid contrarian, the individual who is unwilling to accept the obvious but instead clings to the often illogical notion that there is always a deeper answer that only they see, which will eventually lead to acceptance of they themselves as visionaries. Blogs in particular have made life very easy for the Stupid Contrarian, as well as popular media like CSI. Scott Peterson in particular will walk free because jurors are convinced now by popular media that not only is there always DNA evidence for a crime, it is now a necessary precondition for guilt...because heck, they always find it in the last five minutes of CSI.

Call me a stupid contrarian if you'd like

[lottameez]

but consider the number of people that have walked off death row after it was found that the original "evidence" against them was bogus as proved by the new "evidence" (DNA).

Truth is a bitch. I have far less faith in science and scientists than I used to. In the late 70's academics were telling us we'd be out of fossil fuels in 10 years. And what about the continuing nonsense about what's okay and what's not okay to eat? Every damn thing causes cancer apparently.

I'm not ready to tune out the contrar

Re:Call me a stupid contrarian if you'd like

[Anonymous Coward]

I have far less faith in science and scientists than I used to. In the late 70's academics were telling us we'd be out of fossil fuels in 10 years.

But that should give you more faith in scientists, not less. A good scientist is one who revises what he believes as new evidence arrives.

The contrarians the article objects to - creationists, disbelievers in global warming, etc. - if those guys had said in the late 70s that we'd be out of oil in ten years, they'd be saying now that we haven't had any oil sin

Re:Call me a stupid contrarian if you'd like

[Bastian]

What you've missed is skepticism. A lot of people have Ph.Ds, or are considered industry experts, etc. It is very easy for them to get attention from reporters, or to masquerade hypothesis as proven theory.

Just as harmful is when a scientist makes a perfectly valid claim that is based on a certain set of preconditions or stated assumptions, but the media fails to report these preconditions or assumptions.

Don't lose faith in science and scientists. Lose faith in your ability to believe in every piece of information that comes (or only purportedly comes) out of the scientific community. Science is a system that depends heavily on peer review and skeptical inquiry. You have to consider all sorts of details that you won't get from most media outlets before you can seriously expect to be able to consider the validity of a statement, including not only the assumptions made in a study or experiment, but also the structure of that study or experiment. Otherwise, you are deciding whether or not something is true when you don't even know what the thing whose truth you are evaluating is.

Re:Correction/clarification

[Bastian]

When I say, "don't lose faith in science and scientists," there are a couple things working here. First, when I say science I'm talking about deliberate and informed application of the scientific method. When I say scientists, I mean the scientific community as a whole and over the long run.

I am not saying that someone should accept that the scientific community or any one scientist is always right. After all, that would run contrary to the basic tenets of science.

Okay, you're a stupid contrarian.

[Viking Coder]

If you don't believe in DNA evidence, then you're a stupid contrarian.

You better be pretty damn sure that someone is guilty if you're going to execute them for a crime, and if valid and trustworthy DNA evidence to the contrary doesn't lead you to have a "reasonable doubt" then you are not a reasonable person.

Stupid Contrarians confuse reasonable and possible

[Ars-Fartsica]

A classic pattern of the stupid contrarian is that they confuse the theoretically possible with what reasonably can be expected. In the Scott Peterson case we see people seriously considering that a Satanic cult was behind the murders. It is possible isn't it? Sure, its also possible that Martians came down and committed the crime and then high-tailed it back home. It is theoretically possible. Since we cannot say Martians did not do it beyond a shadow of all theoretical possibility, we must acquit. Thus th

Re:Stupid Contrarians confuse reasonable and possi

[corbettw]

Well, he is a man.

I am not disputing valid skepticism

[Ars-Fartsica]

The point of my post is to debunk the notion that there is always subjectivity and that the minority is always right. Some times facts simpy exist. It requires a certain degree of intelligence to accept facts and not attempt to out-think them. The Stupid Contrarian never will get to this point - you can raise the temperature 10 degrees in December and they will still claim no global warming exists. Why? Because secretly they hope someone smarter than them will prove this and they will be able to claim the g

Re:Uh, what are you arguing exactly?

[jamie]

Liberals are used to CNN and the mainstream media where journalists label others as "conservative" but never use the word "liberal." I've never heard them say "liberal group MoveOn.org" but I've heard them say "conservative right-wing group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

AP wire, Nov. 2, 2004: "Minnesota Republicans failed Tuesday in a bid to push the liberal group MoveOn.org away from polling places..."

ABC News, Oct. 18, 2004: "Hlinko is also one of the people behind the liberal group MoveOn.org..."

San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 2004: "The liberal group MoveOn.org is airing an ad..."

New York Times, August 18, 2004: "Senator John Kerry denounced an advertisement by the liberal group MoveOn.org..."

Washington Post, August 18, 2004: "...the spot being aired by the liberal group MoveOn.org."

New York Daily News, August 17, 2004: "The liberal group MoveOn.org, meanwhile, airs a new ad today..."

USA Today, August 4, 2004: "Members of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accuse Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record. The ad, called 'any questions' is the toughest political ad since an anti-Bush spot called 'Fire Rumsfeld' (showing a hooded Statue of Liberty to remind voters of how U.S. soldiers had abused prisoners in Iraq) was aired by the liberal group MoveOn.org in late May."

The journalist's job...

[scotay]

...is to get you to tune in at 11. You give them way too much credit. They stir the pot, scare the parents, overhype the cancer cure or weight loss drug, or show soldiers with puppy dogs as the need arises.

Journalism is not science

[uid100]

I beleive that it is against human nature for journalists to NOT put their own spin into a story. They may not even recognize the slant in their own writtings.

It's be a good change if executives at amjor media outlets recognized this and put in check/balances for articles rather than hiring a bunch of people who have the same belief structure.

"Fair and balanced" may have a real meaning. Perhaps public non-profit organizations such as NPR could gain back some of their legitimacy.

Journalism is enertainment for profit

[puremisery]

Journalism is enertainment for profit and sciense is well, SCIENCE!

There aren't always two sides to an issue

[wheany]

Balance doesn't mean that if one person speaks the truth for 10 minutes, you have to have another person to lie for 10 minutes.

Re:There aren't always two sides to an issue

[Colonel Cholling]

Balance doesn't mean that if one person speaks the truth for 10 minutes, you have to have another person to lie for 10 minutes.

Reminds me of this. [idrewthis.org]

Science . . . who needs it

[uberjoe]

Pish Posh! What's science ever done for me anyway? Like I have time for this, I need to get back to my web surfing and remember to take my antibiotics, as I'm recovering from surgery in my air conditioned home. Science is for geeks anyway.

Repeat after me: Inclusive != Unbiased

[gearmonger]

Journalists have to start understanding the difference between making their reporting "unbiased" and simply trying to include as many different opinions as possible. The latter does not beget the former.

Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.

Re:Repeat after me: Inclusive != Unbiased

[revscat]

Truth is often indeed subjective, but the mere existence of a differing opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion valuable or credible.

Yes! Yes! Yes! I carouse about in orgiastic delight! You speak TRUTH, my brother, a truth that those who disdain intellectualism and science itself have used to their advantage for many years now! A balanced report on global warming is not presenting whether or not it is occuring, but the degree and rapidity of it. A balanced report on evolution is not between Richard Dawkins and Mullah James Dobson. It's between Dawkins and Gould.

Siddhartha Buddha, man, I think what you said should be emblazoned upon the forehead of every journalist on the planet.

And then we should have Rupert Murdoch drawn and quartered, set fire to the Fox News building, and then have a BBQ of Rush Limbaugh. But that's just me.

You *almost* got it: Inclusive != Unbiased

[lenski]

You're right on W.R.T. evolution, considering that both Dawkins and Gould (R.I.P.) are decades-long internationally recognized experts in their fields. I believe you didn't handle the "global warming" thing fully, since there are *credible* opposing views.

Where evolution has been successfully used (c.f. disease resistance and accumulation of mutations, etc.) and its predictions essentially validated, there isn't much question there. Those who "don't believe in evolution" simply have their heads in the sa

Re:Repeat after me: Inclusive != Unbiased

[Politburo]

I was going to say "liberal", but that's hardly an accurate word to use for such absurd elitism.

Last time I checked, 'liberal' would be inaccurate to describe elitism of any degree. You should invest in a dictionary that's not written by Ann Coulter.

now you'd like to do the thinking for other people, using the media as your proxy.

If you think that the scenario you outline is limited to liberals, you are seriously deluded. Everybody twists facts to support their positions. Everybody.

Re:Repeat after me: Inclusive != Unbiased

[mrtrumbe]

No, no, no. You missed the point entirely.

The point being that journalists should use some sort of rational criteria when determining which opinions to include on a given piece. For example, if I were doing a piece on the existence of extra-terrestrials, I would go out and do research on what opinions on the subject existed. Likely, I'd come up with a list that would include: "there are no aliens because God says so," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is unlikely there are aliens," "given probability and what we know of the universe, it is likely there are aliens," "They could, I guess," and "aliens exist and abducted me last night."

In investigating each of these opinions, it would quickly come out that several of the opinions have little in the way of facts behind them. What evidence is there that aliens abducted some guy from Kansas? Does "because god says so" qualify as evidence for or against the existence of aliens? Further, and opinion like "they could exist, I guess" isn't really worth much, is it? What does that opinion add to the discussion?

Now that the opinions have been filtered a bit, we are left with those opinions which have some backing and credibility. There are still multiple sides to the argument, and there is still debate about facts, evidence and probabilities.

Think this is elitest? Fine. Let's add those filtered opinions back into our story. But do we give those opinions equal time? Do we spend as much time on "because God says" as we do on the guy who has poured years of research into a given subject as we do for the "they could, I guess" opinion? Why?

Others might say, "give the ideas a share of time based on popularity of the ideas." Ick! That seems a pretty lame set of criteria to me. That would mean that we'd probably give the "because God says" crowd more time than the "aliens abducted me!" crowd, even though neither group has any evidence backing them up.

What I'd ask of journalists is to give various ideas time based on the credibility of those ideas. This is obviously subjective and puts a big burden on journalists to do their research and use objective criteria for considering each idea. But then again, isn't that what most people EXPECT journalists to do? The sad fact, is that popularity seems to be the most common set of criteria for reporting on a subject. When has popularity EVER been an indicator of truth?

Given this, if I were doing a program on existence of aliens, I'd focus heavily on the scientific opinions using probability, astronomy, and physics, and make passing mention of the God and abduction ideas.

Taft

Big business and science

[gilesjuk]

Lets also not forget that business often sponsors research that puts certain products in a good light. Journalists love printing that kinda stuff.

"Wine is good for you"
"Coffee is good for you"
etc...

It's all distorted science to keep share prices up.

Re:Big business and science

[Idarubicin]

Wine is good for you"

Actually, scientists don't generally say that kind of thing. Scientists say things like, "Up to one alcoholic drink per day is correlated with a significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. Above two drinks per day, the cardiovascular benefits are offset by increasing risk of liver damage, except where...blah blah blah."

Journalists take peer-reviewed, detailed, often-heavily qualified points, and distill them into misleadingly absolute statem

A thought

[TheMeuge]

Bill Maher once said: "Let us not become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance" (not sure if the phrase is his own). I think it applies very well to this topic. However many journalists are still trying to remain true to a credo of balance, are now plagued with these episodes of hyperbolic need to represent both sides of the story. In essence, they become so balanced that they try and balance issues which are incomparably unbalanced in the first place.

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[Asprin]

The scientist's job is to discover truth about the natural world, and the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.

Indiana Jones said it best:

"Archaeology is the search for 'fact.' Not 'truth.' If it's 'truth' you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall." - Professor Henry Jones, Jr.

The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation.

In short, the way I see it there are six questions you can ask about stuff that happens: Who, what, where, when, how and why. The first five are the domain of science. The last is not, because it requires that there are alternative possibilities, and as we all know, nature doesn't cheat.

Re:Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[Colonel Cholling]

The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth.

"Fact": from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere "to make; to do". Facts are created, not discovered.

Re:Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[tsg]

"Fact": from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere "to make; to do". Facts are created, not discovered.

That the word meant that in an ancient, dead language does not mean that is how it is used in English today.

Re:Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[jamie]

"The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference. Interpreting those facts may give you some insight into an underlying truth, but that requires a human insight, something beyond the application of the scientific method to an investigation."

That is 100% wrong. The scientist's job is to learn facts, propose hypotheses, test the hypotheses against the facts, then return to step 1 and repeat. The theories that fall out of the tested hypotheses, and thus the advancement of human knowledge, are the product of the scientific method. That's what doing science is all about.

Human insight is an absolute requirement for the scientific method; how else could our sphere of knowledge be expanded? It is obviously necessary for the proposing of hypotheses, but it also happens to be a key element both in discovering facts in the first place, and in testing hypotheses. There's a reason science isn't done by robots.

I used the term "truth" loosely in my writeup for this story. If you want to quibble and say science is limited to proposing and testing theories or models, or come up with some other strict definition of science, that's fine. But to say science begins and ends with discovering facts, and requires no human insight, is simply wrong.

You may want to read the now-discredited logical positivists of the 19th century, and then the much more enjoyable Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Fun stuff.

WHen you understand a topic and read the newspaper

[Red Moose]

The best way to see that newspapers and media are by-and-large a load of shit is to for example, read an article on a topic which you know loads about, like something you work in. Watch the way the jornalist successfully manages to miss the core of the purpose for the device/drug/political-stance/whatever, and it's obvious to you that this journalist is an idiot and knows squat because hell you work in the field.

Then apply this same logic to those other articles that you don't know anything about - you can simply presume that somewhere out there somebody else is criticising that other article for exactly the same reasons.

Not that easy...

[nordicfrost]

It's very easy to dole out critique to journalists, a lot harder to actually be one. I write for a living, in a newspaper. My chosen field is IT and tech, and I feel like I have very good grip about the stuff. But I can't write an article like "Explorer sux0rs!, Firefox pwns j00", it has to ta in consideration every side of the subject. Not to mention that the MS lawyers would have a defamitation suit field day if I make the slightest mistake.

devil's advocate

[nanojath]

I generally agree with the article, but just to be the trouble-maker - what exactly are Mr. Chris Mooney's credentials for critiquing reporting on science? According to his bio (http://www.chriscmooney.com/about.asp) he studied English and his only background is in Journalism. There's no indication he has ever studied science except as a journalist and layman, there is no indication he's made any formal or credible study of the history or philosophy of science. There's every indication that he would happily rip someone for citing, in the context of a scientific dispute, the opinion of an individual of his own credentials. I don't see that this article really lives up to the very standard of evidence it purports to advocate. It isn't enough to simply say "all the REAL scientists know this is the way it is." If there is to be a higher order of accuracy in scientific reporting it is going to take more than this guy is dishing up to sell it to the overwhelmingly scientifically illterate general populace.

Re:devil's advocate

[Idarubicin]

There's no indication he has ever studied science except as a journalist and layman, there is no indication he's made any formal or credible study of the history or philosophy of science. There's every indication that he would happily rip someone for citing, in the context of a scientific dispute, the opinion of an individual of his own credentials.

On the other hand, he cites specific examples of the problem that he criticizes. In each case, he doesn't rely solely on his own knowledge, but refers to gen

Really?

[dcw3]

...the journalist's is to report the world's events accurately.

The journalist's job is draw more eyes to the paper/tv station that they work for. Why do you think that USA Today has been so successful?...it's because of all the pretty colors & graphics, not because of the content or accuracy. If the statement above were true, than we'd be seeing the corrections on the front page.

Absolutely.

[downward dog]

The Right is fond of saying that the media has a liberal bias, and they are right to a small extent. The media and the entertainment industry (funny how similar those two can be) is slightly left of center on certain social issues. Can you imagine an episode of Friends or Boston Public or 60 minutes concluding that abortion is wrong, or that environmental regulations are too strict?

But the conservative Right is more wrong than right. Media is driven by profit first and foremost, not by some "liberal bias". Gilette and Time Warner and Vivendi would rather see their stock go up than seriously investigate the truth. The truth doesn't necessarily translate into profit, especially when it challenges the status quo.

Mooney's article is dead on. In order to appear balanced--that is, in order to keep viewers/readers/listeners happy--that is, in order to make a profit, the news media cannot come down on one side or the other, when the truth is to the side (and not in the middle).

This is why I actually enjoy getting my news from places like Mother Jones (left) and the National Review (right). Media sources that are ideologically oriented, rather than "balanced", are often able to report arguments or issues that the mainstream media would avoid.

Re:Absolutely.

[Doomdark]

Can you imagine an episode of Friends or Boston Public or 60 minutes concluding that abortion is wrong,

Actually; to me it always seems they do just that, just in quite subtle way. There is no big "Abortion is WRONG" statement, sure, but more often than not TV shows do actually show the alternative (keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption) as the "right choice" ("I would feel so guilty if I had done that"). Similarly for teens having sex (before being married), or adults having "promiscuous" sex; the

Balance must itself be balanced

[DeadVulcan]

I think the article is absolutely right... but I would put it this way: if 99% of the scientific community accept a theory and 1% does not, then I wouldn't agree that an article that gives both sides equal footing is balanced at all.

The root of the problem is when large and powerful organizations with political interests set themselves up and declare that they are a valid part of the scientific community when they're not. And here, there's no fault with the journalists, who don't have the background to separate legitimate scientific organizations from pseudo-scientific ones.

Science, journalism, and the "news cycle"

[dr. loser]

Presenting "both sides" in an effort to be objective is only a symptom of much larger problems, from science illiteracy to the pressures of the sound-bite/24-hour-news-cycle modern media.

I'm a scientist, and there is constant pressure to boil everything down into an "elevator message", the sort of one-sentence thing you tell someone on an elevator when asked what you do or what you're advocating (e.g. "Cigarettes cause cancer."). The problem with this is that real science worth doing can rarely be summarized this way without losing important details!

Unfortunately, the media doesn't want to hear things like "Global climate is very complex, and the impact of industry must be studied in detail because we don't really understand how sensitive a complex system is to big changes in certain parameters." That's boring . What they want to hear is "Global warming is dooming humanity!" or "Global warming is nothing to worry about!". Both of those get more attention and sell more product. Presenting both of these points of view in the same article makes for an exciting "debate", creates controversy deliberately, and again makes everyone's advertisers happy.

The competitive pressure for the sound bite, the quick statement that gets your attention even if it's not remotely accurate or true, is killing real journalism, science, and generally most intelligent public discourse about complicated issues.

Science, and the madness of crowds

[RealProgrammer]

The biggest complaint I have is that journalists and science writers dumb down the details of a story. It's not clear whether they do it for editorial reasons (the reader would just be confused by numbers anyway) or because the writer doesn't understand, or is lazy.

There are a lot of people who have what I call a "Scientific American" level of understanding. We took physics in college, but we aren't working physicists, for example. We can understand most topics if put in context, but it's a little beyond us to fully understand an article in some specialized journal.

A second complaint is that writers tends to accept the assumptions that mosts scientists do. They don't challenge the framework, but simply accept the groupthink. If a contrarian scientist comes along, they may cover the story but it's usually followed by someone saying the guy is a wacko for challenging the crowd.

So call me contrarian if you want, but just give me the numbers. The opinion of the crowd wouldn't matter as much as it does if writers gave more of the details and let us draw our own conclusions.

The problem with Science reporting is...

[markdj]

that there are a number of factors that go into bad science stories.

1. Many Americans avoid science like the plague and a newspaper with many science stories sells less than those with sports and entertainment. Additionally science literacy in the US is poor at best. That means that many reporters and editors don't understand what they are reporting and and as a result don't do the subject justice. They may even give junk science equal weight.

2. Some science topics are so politicized (such as abortion, stem cell research, global warming, evolution) that any reporting is criticized with giving one side more weight than the other no matter how careful the reporter is. That leads to editors avoiding in depth analysis of these subjects.

3. Many science topics require a lot of space for in depth analysis and newspapers would rather give space to articles on topics that sell better. Also, they will cut off a story to make space for some fluff story, thereby leaving out the most important parts. Science journalists need to write with these space constraints in mind; put the most salient points up front before readers and editors stop reading. This is unlike in scientific journals where the entire article must be read to understand the point being made.

Lawyers Suck

[hoggoth]

This is the same reason that our adversarial legal system also falls flat. Having two skilled attorneys argue each side of a case just proves which is the better debater, not which is 'right' or 'true'.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any better system. Having someone in power decide (Judge, King, etc) is worse.

A few places for the skeptics to enjoy

[scribblej]

As a "skeptic" I found both Jon's comments on Crossfire and this article to be enjoyable -- in the sense that here's someone saying what we've known to be true for years.

If any of you feel this way, you might enjoy some fine skeptical sites such as:

The James Randi Educational Foundation
http://www.randi.org/ [randi.org]

Committe for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
http://www.csicop.org/ [csicop.org]

Bad Astronomy
http://www.badastronomy.com/ [badastronomy.com]

The worst problem

[HarveyBirdman]

The worst case (and sadly common) is when bad science and bad journalism go hand in hand. The classic case is where a study finds an increased risk of disease X when using chemical Y. The change was from 1 in a million to 2 in a million... data noise. But the grant seekers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H researchers publish anyway, and the media breathlessly proclaims "Chemical Y causes a 100% increase in disease X!"

This happens over and over again. You hear it a lot on the news capsules they do on the radio (and a lot of people hear). Any group with who knows what agenda can issue a press release and the media just parrots it.

Another recent case is the report by The Lancet that US troops have killed 100,000 civilians. This number is being reported everywhere as a recorded facts, as if there's a book somewhere with every name dutifully recorded. The Antibushites use it as if it were an article of faith and an unimpeachable fact, despite that every other estimate made everywhere else is an order or two of magnitude lower.

If you download the actual report, however, you see it's just complete bullshit. It was a statistical analysis, extrapolated from 63 (yes, sixty three, and a biased sample of 63 at that) death certificates, and the 95% confidence interval, even with their data massaging, ranges from 8000 to 192,000.

From the report itself:
"We obtained January, 2003, population estimates for each of Iraq's 18 Governorates from the Ministry of Health. No attempt was made to adjust these numbers for recent displacement or immigration."

Translation: our data has no connection with reality at all! In engineering, we call that a "wild ass guess" or, at other times, a "proposal."

Here's further anaylsis: http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html [chicagoboyz.net]

So, yeah, it sucks when journalists can't report real science well, but that's a much lesser problem than journalists reporting poor science poorly. I've seen various activists hold press conferences and spout all sorts of fantasy figures, and not a single reporter questions any of them. No one asks "how were these figures obtained". They just scribble it down and regurgitate it later.

This is just one of many reasons I hope for the ELE asteroid. Humanity's capacity for self delusion is depressing.

Re:The worst problem

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

is the report by The Lancet that US troops have killed 100,000 civilians. This number is being reported everywhere as a recorded facts

When this study was first reported, I saw dozens of people on Slashdot questioning it's validity and debunking it. They proclaimed those who made the study poor scientists, and pointed out the statistical margins of error. You are here again proclaiming it to be poor science, and how the media simply regurgitates it.

Well, I'd like to know, how many civilians have been killed in Iraq? What is your best guess, and where are you getting your figures? I looked around and could not find even one other study, aside from the Lancet one, that even attempts to apply any scientific method to discovering this number. I looked at numbers reported in the media, and still reported in the media, and all of them are guesses based either on the reports from a few hospitals in less devastated areas, or by modifying another news agency's report.

I agree that this study has potentially serious flaws, it's sample size is too small, and much of the media has done a poor job of explaining the likelihood that it could be very wrong. But at the same time, I think it is moronic to attack the credibility of the only study conducted that actually has ANY credibility.

If you, as a scientist, were asked to estimate how many civilians have been killed in Iraq, what numbers would you rely upon? What study has a better methodology and execution? If you don't like this study, why don't you go try to conduct one of your own in the middle of a war. The scientists who conducted the Lancet study should be lauded for their efforts to come up with a figure that has some backing in scientific method. Their numbers are not facts, and should not be presented as such, but they are still the most credible numbers to be presented thus far.

The Economist reviewed the Lancet study

[geekotourist]

As they wrote [economist.com], the two major possible errors of the study would be 1. bad sampling methodology or 2. bad data / mistakes in the analysis. The Economist concludes while 33 samples (includes 7868 people) is on the small side, it is reasonable given other epidemiological studies and the fact that its a war zone. The data itself wouldn't be subject to recall bias, because people don't forget deaths in the family, so...:

"the discrepancy between the Lancet estimate and the aggregated press reports is not as lar

Re:The worst problem

[BeBoxer]

you see it's just complete bullshit. It was a statistical analysis, extrapolated from 63 (yes, sixty three, and a biased sample of 63 at that) death certificates,

Wow. I'm impressed at your ability to look right at facts and not see them. The results are from "we derived a target sample size of 4300 individuals. We assumed that every household had seven individuals, and a sample of 30 clusters of 30 households each was chosen." The death certificates were "sought to ensure that a large fraction of the repo

A year ago the estimate was 15,000 Iraqis dead.

[Sans_A_Cause]

The estimate a year ago [theage.com.au] was 15,000 dead Iraqis [may require registration]. At that time there were only 230 US soldiers dead as well, so assuming the Iraqi death toll paces the US death toll, that would imply around 75,000 Iraqis killed. That's not far off from the 100,000 estimate.

Larry Krauss' "In Defense of Nonsense"

[Bootsy Collins]

Larry Krauss addressed this eight years ago in an excellent editorial for the NYTimes entitled "In Defense of Nonsense," which I reproduce below:

-----

July 29, 1996
In Defense of Nonsense
By Lawrence Krauss

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Four months ago, when his Presidential campaign still seemed viable, Patrick Buchanan appeared on a national television program and argued in favor of creationism. This, by itself, is not so remarkable, given some of Mr. Buchanan's other views.

What seemed more significant, however, was that the same national media that questioned other Buchanan campaign planks like trade protectionism and limits on immigration did not produce a major article or editorial proclaiming the candidate's views on evolution to be simple nonsense.

Why is this the case? Could it be that the fallacies inherent in a strict creationist viewpoint are so self-evident that they were deemed not to deserve comment? I think not. Indeed, when a serious candidate for the highest office of the most powerful nation on earth holds such views you would think that this commentary would automatically become "newsworthy."

Rather, what seems to have taken hold is a growing hesitancy among both journalists and scholars to state openly that some viewpoints are not subject to debate: they are simply wrong. They might point out flaws, but journalists also feel great pressure to report on both sides of a "debate."

Part of the reason is that few journalists naturally feel comfortable enough on scientific matters to make pronouncements. But there is another good reason for such hesitancy. In a truly democratic society, one might argue, everything is open to debate.

Who has the authority to deem certain ideas incorrect or flawed? Indeed, appeal to authority is as much an anathema to scientists as it is to many on the academic left who worry about the authority of the "scientific establishment."

What is so wonderful about scientific truth, however, is that the authority which determines whether there can be debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of scientists; nor is it divine.

The authority rests with experiment.

It is perhaps the most immutable but most widely misunderstood property of modern science: a proposition can never be proved to be absolutely true. There can always be some experiment lurking around the corner to require alteration of any model of reality.

What is unequivocal, however, is falseness. A theory whose predictions fail the test of experiment is always wrong, period, end of story.

The earth isn't flat, because you can travel around it, period, end of story.

This misunderstanding is at the heart of much scholarly debate in recent months, including the amusing hoax that a New York University physicist, Alan Sokal, played at the expense of the editors of the journal Social Text. The postmodernist journal published a bogus article that Professor Sokal had written as a satire of some social science criticism of the nature of scientific knowledge.

It was aimed at those in the humanities who study the social context of science, but whom he argued could not discern empirically falsifiable models from meaningless nonsense.

The editors, on the other hand, argued that publication was based in part on their notion that the community of scholars depends on the goodwill of the participants -- namely they had assumed Professor Sokal had something to say.

They too have a point.

The great paranormal debunker and magician, the Amazing Randi, has shown time and again that earnest researchers can be duped by those who would have been willing to answer "yes" to the question "are you lying?" but who were never asked.

We must always be skeptical. Being skeptical, however does not get in the way of the search for objective truths.

It merely assists in the uncovering of falsehoods.

Another popular misunderstanding of the nature of truth and falsehood in modern scie

Dilbert

[Viking Coder]

Was it Dilbert who asked, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

Science and Media: a conflict of interest

[perlchild]

Let's see:
The scientists are in search of verifiable, scientific truth, which is contained in repeatable experimentation and proven theorems.
The media are in the business of reporting truth, in all its interpretations(including what may be truth for one person, but not for others)
Balanced journalism can report the opinions as truth(provided they properly qualify it, which they do inaccurately far too often, when they bother to at all)

If the media only reported scientific truth, they might as well just translate the original scientific paper into plain english(it's closer to technical writing, not reporting) since the original paper is a report... It reports what happened in the experiment, and the theory behind it, and what conclusions one can draw within the constraints of the margins of error.

There's not much room for scientific reporters anymore, simply because they become translators. And it's a very very unexciting aspect of science, once all the theories get proven(after all, most proven theories take decades to be disproved, the ones that do get disproved at all).

It could theoretically be exciting to report on the process of "proving" a theory, provided you jazzed it up, and that can lead to all sorts of adverse consequences for the truth that just got proven. After all, when you jazz up the consequences/corollary of a theorem that just got proven, you can change its "truth value" from true to false.

The garden variety journalists seem to have a very hard time with that concept, the fact that if a theorem is true, given an exacting set of conditions/details(which get erased by the process of transforming to english) it can become false if those conditions are relaxed(after all, it's scientific truth, how could it be false?). But science only works with "whole truths" and "detailed truths" and those don't always translate well into modern languages.

How Slashdot and Columbia distort science

[michaelmalak]

It's not abortion that causes breast cancer, it's the lack of childbirth. That's why before 20th century birth control, breast cancer was known as the "nun's disease."

According to a Nov. 2, 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute paper abstract [nih.gov]:

Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women

For more references, see this biased geocities page [geocities.com].

By omitting this important relationship, the Columbia editorial is itself biased.

National Geographic on Evolution

[CaseyB]

I was astounded at the most recent National Geographic's article on evolution.

After reading the cover teaser "Was Darwin Wrong?", I was absolutely expecting articles of exactly the sort described in this story. One article by a scientist arguing the validity of evolution, and one by some guy apologetically describing creationism and other pseudoscience.

Instead, the article opens with a teaser page asking the same question. Following that is a page with a giant screaming "NO". I laughed my ass off. And nowhere to be found was the sad little counterpoint article -- the magazine actually had the guts to commit to a single point of view.

The best thing now will be reading the letters to the editor in 2 months. The fundamentalists will be calling for blood, and it'll be interesting to see how the editors respond.

Re:National Geographic on Evolution

[tgibbs]

The author makes a good case for micro-evolution (the fact that single-celled organisms change over time, not requiring the addition of information), but takes a sudden leap of logic to claim this proves macro-evolution and the formation of complex organisms out of simpler ones.

The notion that there is such a thing as "macro" evolution, which is distinct from "micro" evolution is much beloved of creationists. Of course, they can't tell you how to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, because they look exactly the same at the DNA level--the same kinds of sequence changes, duplications, and rearragnements. Basically, it is just a dodge; any evolution demonstrated in laboratory studies is dismissed as microevolution, while everything else is macroevolution and the result of "intelligent design." William of Occam would spin in his grave.

Whether or not you believe the facts point to evolution, National Geographic is not the place to look for scientific, peer-reviewed information. Then again, they have the guts to commit to a single point of view, don't they?

However, when it comes to evolution, they are saying the same thing that you'll read in the peer-reviewed journals. I don't know if it takes that much guts, though, just elementary knowledge of science--to biologists, "Darwin was right," is about as controversial as "Copernicus was right" is to astronomers.

Missing the problem

[Cody Hatch]

A lot of people seem to be missing the real problem here. Let's say journalists only report one side - which would, of course, be the "right" side. Except...right according to whom? The journalist who is NOT trained in the field (or they'd be working in a lab, not a newsroom)? The large corporation whom the journalist works for? An opinion poll of some group? The say-so of a government agency (and isn't THAT a scary thought!)? Who?

When people complain about a journalist presenting two sides of a debate, what they want is for the journalist to pick just one side, AND for it to be the side they agree with. This just isn't always going to happen.

Having a journalist give equal weight to some fringe view is frustrating, but if it annoys you, just remember - it's pretty much a given that something you believe very strongly is a fringe view to someone. (Such as open source/free software, which outside of /. isn't exactly mainstream, you know...)

Still not convinced? Okay, imagine that a journalist does an article on something you have no real clue about. Maybe something about the economy, or south american politics, or chinese military power, or whatever. Assume they report one view. Quick! Is that a mainstream view, or is the reporter feeding you some fringe view? How could you possibly know? If the reporter gives two opposing views, well, you still don't know which is "mainstream" (whatever the hell that means), but at least you know that debate exists, you can go look the details up, and then wonder why the reporter even included one of those views. It's not perfect, but it's better than getting a monoculture rammed down your throat.

Speaking of which - Fox tends to have a pretty poor reputation around here, at least partly because they don't bother with the "he said/she said" school as much as other broadcasters do. Instead, they present what they thing is "right". Which is fine - but...doesn't look so nifty when you don't agree with the reporters definition of "right", does it?

Re:I didn't applaud, actually

[meabolex]

Crossfire itself wasn't hurting America. The idea that all discussions must involve side A and side B and neither can agree is hurting America. Lack of common ground is hurting America.

Stewart's premise was that real debate isn't happening. One side yells at the other side. Whoever can delude the most people wins.

However, I don't think a fair, logical discussion of the issues would work (for long) on network television. People want to see the gladiators fight -- certainly not gentlemen.

Re:Biased reporting or biased science?

[tsg]

Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.

Stop. Just stop. And learn something about how science really works before you start on the persecution complex, okay?

Scientists can say anything they bloody well want providing they have the evidence to support the statement. That's how science works. That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence. Even the most respected scientists in the world must support their claims with evidence. And even Steven Hawking can be wrong. [newscientist.com]

Re:Biased reporting or biased science?

[bfields]

That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence.

In fairness, this depends on what you mean by "the church". These days any reasonable church recognizes that it is their job to inspire, to seek justice and compassion, etc., not, for example, to attempt to determine the exact age of the earth by calculations from biblical family trees.

One of the sources of our current problem is that discussions of religion in the United States are so dominated by the fundamentalist fringe.

While not a Christian myself, I recognize that Christianity has a lot to value in it, and it distresses me to see kids being brought up to believe that the only way to stay true to their principles is to swallow this sort of pseudo-science.

--Bruce Fields

Re:Biased reporting or biased science?

[Viking Coder]

Wow. Just - wow.

I never really knew what lipstick on a pig looked like before.

The article explaining that dinosaur tracks are mostly in a straight line, so that means they were running away from the great flood was particularly delusional.

Oh, and this gem [answersingenesis.org] on the speed of light was just amazing.

Re:Biased reporting or biased science?

[greg_barton]

Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.

Oh, please. That's positively delusional.

Give me one, JUST ONE, example of a scientist being killed for expressing an opinion that agrees with a church.

Just one. That's all I ask.