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.
No comments:
Post a Comment