Blog Recommendations

These are my recommendations for classmates’ blogs.

This blog is about portrayals of women in media. The article (link provided) is interesting because it harshly criticizes a TV show and then is equally harshly criticized by a classmate’s comment below.

http://portrayalsofwomeninmedia-superw.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-sex-and-city-can-influence-girls.html

This blog deals with the impact of media on students. I recommend the article about Facebook; it is short but thought-provoking, because it provides research results that can be interpreted in various ways.

http://newmediaandstudents.blogspot.com/2011/05/facebook-narcissism.html

This is the blog about product placement, discussing e.g. cigarette smoking. The author presents the issue that concerns many.

http://theproductplacementblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/cigarette-product-placement.html

This blog is particularly interesting because it deals with a very unusual topic of smoking’s negative impact being exaggerated by media. In addition to that, it effectively provides evidence to support the thesis.

http://advertisingwontkillyou.blogspot.com/2011/05/passive-smoking-publicity-stunt.html

This one deals with the body image and media. It offers some interesting information about the issue and carefully analyzes negative impact of media.

http://portrayalsofwomen.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/media-and-body-image/

This blog is very similar to the previous one, discussing the topic of media and eating disorders and taking a very negative side of the issue.

http://mediaanddisasters.blogspot.com/2011/05/academic-essay.html

Yes, Media Present Science Often in a Distorted Way (essay)

Science has always been important for progress of humankind. Today, it reaches wide audience through media and influences people’s lifestyles, knowledge and attitudes. However, journalists are not scientists. Their aims are often not only to educate, inform and persuade, but also to shock and primarily sell stories. This, together with their own shallow knowledge about topics of their articles, creates a distorted image of scientific results in popular media, which can have negative effects including distrust toward science among people.

Media should be careful when assessing scientific research, because it can have significant impact, and some realized this. Media were many times accused of undermining reputation of science. For example, after Daily Mail published many stories warning before risks of the MMR vaccine (against measles, mumps and rubella), amount of people receiving the vaccine fell by one fifth – and this can lead even to deaths of persuaded people (“Media ‘Sensationalising”). An old study conducted in Canada showed that people are more likely to get influenced by media regarding health when the same message is delivered repeatedly over some considerable time period, from multiple sources and appeals to various motives (Flay et al.).

There is some discussion regarding factors causing current situation. Allan Mazur, a professor of public affairs, thirty years ago offered an interesting explanation of the reasons why media communicate science improperly. According to him, a range of scientists reporting results to journalists is too small, because media ask for the news mainly the scientists they already know. He also states that one who come to media with scientific issues first, without being asked, are often ones with extreme attitudes (Mazur). This could be potentially dangerous, because only limited range of information would get to the audience. More recent article by a Biologist John Timmer offers different explanation. According to Timmer, problems occur both on the both sides. He sees the origin of the problem of the journalists’ side in the economic problems that hit journalism, which lead to the employment of less specialized journalists (Timmer). According to Ben Goldacre, a famous critic of media presentation of science, media sensationalize science to make their stories attractive. They do this by various means, e.g. scaring or shocking audience by distortion or exaggeration of scientific results (Goldacre). This happens e.g. when media do not distinguish between correlation and causation or they make hasty conclusion on the basis of little scientific evidence (this happens mainly in titles of articles).

Proposed solutions are various; some relate to the media side of the problem, others to the scientific side. Experts generally recommend that media should employ scientists and scientists should be trained to communicate (“Media ‘Sensationalising”). Fiona Fox, a director of the Science Media Centre, proposes that people should be encouraged to adopt rationalism rather than to condemn science “enemies”. She also stresses the role of scientists communicating their results. According to her, “the media would ‘do’ science better when scientists start to ‘do’ the media better” (Fox). On the other hand, John Beddington calls for strict condemnation of “pseudo-science” and considers it to be destroying scientist’s intentions to spread research results (Hunter). Another opinion comes from John Timmer, who stresses the importance of leading scientists to take communication with media seriously, as well as persuades readers to realize that scientific journalism faces problems and to act according to that. They should check multiple sources, verify the reliability of sources and remember that articles can be sensationalized (Timmer). Solving this problem is not easy; even Fox emphasizes that scientists’ loyalty to “evidence, accuracy, reason, (and) rationality” is somehow distant from communicating with public, because this sphere sometimes prefers “policy-base evidence” over “evidence-based policy”.

To sum it up, it is unquestionable that media do communicate scientific results nowhere near properly. They do this for various purposes, and pose some danger to their audience as well as undermine reputation of science. The solution to this problem should be considered by all sides of the issue – journalists should engage in more professional approach and scientists should actively fight for their proper presentation. In addition, of course, members of the audience are the ones who should think critically, educate themselves and ask for better standard in a spirit of Goethe’s “We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves.”

Bibliography

Flay, Brian R., Don DiTecco, and Ronald P. Schlegel. "Mass Media in Health Promotion: An Analysis Using an Extended Information-Processing Model." Health, Education & Behavior 7.2 (1980): 127-47. Sage Journals Online. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.

Fox, Fiona. "Sharing the Love of Science: Thoughts on Beddington." On Science and the Media. 28 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.

Goldacre, Ben. "Don't Dumb Me Down." Guardian.co.uk. 8 Sept. 2005. Web. 06 May 2011.

Hunter, Cornelius. "John Beddington and Intolerance of Pseudo-Science." Darwin's God. 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 08 May 2011.

Mazur, Allan. "Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies." Journal of Communication 31.2 (1981): 106-15. Wiley Online Library. 7 Feb. 2006. Web. 6 May 2011.

"Media 'Sensationalising Science'" BBC News. 3 Mar. 2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.

Timmer, John. "Social Media Threats Hyped by Science Reporting, Not Science." Ars Technica. 2009. Web. 06 May 2011.

Recommendations for Further Information

For the ones interested in the topic of science and media I prepared a few links.

v     Science Media Centre

This is the official page of Science Media Centre, mentioned previously regarding the article of its director Fiona Fox. The page offers a service for journalists who want to promote science in a proper way, but it is also useful for readers interested in professional opinion. In the section “Press Releases”, there are experts’ answers to current media science news, which may be educational and interesting (e.g. reaction to the concerns over nuclear energy after Japanese earthquake)

v     Bad Science

This page, previously mentioned in the article assessing Goldacre’s “Don’t dumb me down”, is unique critical piece definitely worth attention. The page’s description begins with “Each week, Ben Goldacre skewers the enemies of reason.” It threatens journalists who distort science because of sensation, politicians who lie and ignore facts and advertisers who misuse science. Goldacre critically approaches current media-science issues and explains them in detail.

v     True about Mice

Remember the mice “turning gay”? This analytical and comprehensible article in Scientific American explains the results of the study mentioned in my second posting and points to how media misinterpreted it. I recommend reading this long article mainly because it is a great example of clash between scientific results and their representation in media. The author not only criticizes misunderstanding of the study, but also courageous statements of the scientists who conducted it.

v     Webcomic

Finally, I would really recommend looking at this part of XKCD webcomic series. XKCD is a popular entertaining webcomic dealing mainly with scientific topics, so it is often incomprehensible for an internet user not interested in science. This part deals with media sensationalizing and exaggerating small scientific results. 

Dumbing Down

Not every professional article related to the topic of Science and Media is that positive and “gentle” as previously mentioned “Sharing the love of science: thoughts on Beddington” by Fiona Fox. Guardian, British daily newspaper with mightily popular web page, releases a series called Bad Science, led by a writer and doctor Ben Goldacre. His harsh article from September 2005 called “Don't dumb me down” explains how and why media simplify and distort science.

Goldacre impressively states his hypothesis that “the media create a parody of science, for their own means”. He accuses media of then attacking this parody and pretending to attack science. This is perhaps connected to why people do not take science seriously; they consume distorted information served by media and are mostly not willing to investigate issues further. The author divides media science stories into three categories and concisely and entertainingly explains them. These categories are: wacky stories (often assuring people that what they do is ok; e.g. “Infidelity is genetic, say scientists.”), scare stories (exaggerating risks not supported by enough evidence) and “breakthrough” stories (small new findings which may be significant, but need far more research to become really important). Goldacre says that media “dumb down” the stories in a belief that people do not understand science anyway and accuses journalists that they often themselves do not understand what they write about.

Although the article is not written in a serious tone and it is very critical, I can only recommend it, because it brings harsh and comprehensible explanation of media approach to science.

How the Love of Science Should be Spread

Finding analytical articles about the problem of media incorrectly presenting science is not exactly an easy task. Anyway, there are some, and I can especially recommend “Sharing the love of science: thoughts on Beddington”. It was published in February 2011 on the blog of Fiona Fox, who is a director of the Science Media Centre, therefore she is experienced in this area.

The article begins with impressive quote of John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London. “We are not - and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this - grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.” Fox admits that scientists praised Beddington for stating this, but she suggests different attitude. She thinks that encouraging people to embrace the scientific method is more desirable than persuading them to condemn “anti-scientific” approach. She mentions the Science Media Centre and its mission “to help to renew public trust in science”, which she believes can be accomplished this way.

Overall, the article is not only interesting, but also constructive. The author emphasizes that scientists should be more active in trying to communicate science to wide audience and praises Beddington quote “We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable. In a world of global communication, we cannot afford to only speak to ourselves.”

Questionable Oral Sex Issue

My university professor once told us that among all motifs in media, people are particularly sensitive to death and sex. Especially sex is often mentioned as a popular element “selling” products. It is also very favorite subject of lifestyle articles, mostly in magazines created specifically for either women or men. It is so usual that it hardly can be considered controversial, but in particular situations it can cause wave of strong reactions – for example when the article informs about something strongly relevant to lives of the audience members and it emphasizes the importance of considering it. This situation occurred when Daily Mail published in February 2011 the article with really striking title – “Revealed: Oral sex is ‘bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco’ ”; as Daily Mail is a popular source of this kind of information, it spread quickly (for example Slovak article on tvnoviny.sk).

Although the Daily Mail article used a lot of citations of scientists and statistical numbers, it offered also some confusing information. The title itself is very sensational and hardly true. I have not spent much time studying natural sciences in my life; yet I know how difficult and rare is to honestly use definitive phrases in science. Words such as “proven” and “revealed” are quite popular mainly in media intended to be sold to wide range of readers interested in both news and entertainment. This can be especially applied to tabloid journalism Daily Mail, which seeks sensations and controversies. Besides “revealed”, also part “bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco” can be considered to be somehow deceptive. There is more than one reason for this. Firstly, as the article itself informs, scientists believe that oral sex is “a bigger cause of some oral cancers than tobacco”; therefore saying that it is globally a bigger cause seems to be premature. Secondly, this result applies only to males under 50. Thirdly, the title uses “oral sex” as a synonym of human papilloma virus (HPV), which is believed to be causing oral cancer.

The article does not mention pattern of how HPV causes cancer (not even if this is known). Even more importantly, it seems not to distinguish between correlation (mere statistical relationship between two values) and causation (causal relationship), using mostly word “cause” (eight times) and “risk” (four times). Although names of the scientists and the university for which they work are stated, no link to the study abstract or similar is provided, so the source cannot be effortlessly checked. The article lacks clear and functional structure and offers relatively huge amount of statistical information considering its target audience; this leave an impression that the title is most important. After all, that is the sensation here...

Mice Turned Gay or How Media Simplify Science Too Much

Homosexuality has been a controversial topic for a long time. Today, it is definitely more tolerated than fifty years ago, but various opinions and attitudes toward it exist. This and the memory of past punishment of homosexual people makes this issue very sensitive and scientific work focusing on it may be considered controversial. Media did not miss a chance to provide their audience with some “interesting and shocking” news when Nature, a prominent scientific journal, published a study about sexual preference in mice.

The study was published online on March 23, 2011, in Nature, with not very sensational and widely-comprehensible title “Molecular regulation of sexual preference revealed by genetic studies of 5-HT in the brains of male mice”. According to the scientists who conducted the study, sexual behavior of male mice deprived of serotonin neurons increases and they mate with both male and female mice. The results did not touch directly homosexuality and connections to human sexual behavior would be quite premature, because this study was first of its kind and explained only one aspect (serotonin). Nevertheless, some media did not hesitate to make this connection and attracted readers by really shocking titles. The best example of this is probably the article called Scientists Turn Mice Gay by Depriving Them of Serotonin. This was published on Gawker web, which is popular page allowing anyone who requests and is approved for sending them news. It was only one day after the original study was resealed in Nature. Mostly the title is problematic, because scientist turned the mice rather bisexual than homosexual (gay). The body of the article informs that male mice without serotonin neurons lost their interest in females, while this is not true – they mated with both sexes. In the introduction, the author also connects the results to the mood, because low levels of serotonin are connected to depression and antidepressants raise serotonin levels. He does so by suggesting that if one feels depressed, than he might be a gay. Although this can be easily perceived as irony, the connection is puzzling and makes the results of the study appear as not serious.

Much better article was published for example by CBS, emphasizing that whether the results can be applied to humans as well as whether the mice turned bisexual or only their sexual behavior was increased, is questionable. Sadly, this approach is not prevalent in popular articles, indicating that the purpose is more to entertain than to educate and inform.

Media for Science or Science for Media?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/24/in-honor-of-comic-con/#more-2454

How many times have you reconsidered your lifestyle? How many of your decisions have been made because of what you consider to be science?

Today, lives of people in the western culture are heavily influenced by trends presented to them by media. Many of these are based on media communication of scientific results, which can be very appealing. Therefore science not only influences what our light-bulbs consist of and that cars are starting to use hydrogen instead of petroleum; it also influences our knowledge and decisions we make in our lives. The reason why we should be concerned regarding the latter is that this part of science is served to us by media, not directly from professionals, and unfortunately the picture that gets to us is often not just simplified, but also distorted. This happens because the aim of media is not only to provide information in a widely comprehensible form, but to shock and sensationalize it.

People, sure of their “truths”, mostly do not even think about the quality of their understanding. Some realize that media serve imprecise information regarding science, but this often leads to disappointment from science instead of media. My aim is to point to the problem of media communicating science in a distorted and sensational way, illustrate and analyze it. I will focus mainly on the internet, because it provides huge amount of information, is widely accessible and it is difficult to control the quality of content there.