Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Watchdog journalism vs science spin

Recently we got into a tad of trouble by criticizing the one and only Alan Alda's sincere effort to help scientists learn how to communicate understandably with the general public.  On its surface we didn't disagree with the idea that Alda might have something to teach scientists.  Instead, our point was that scientists already spend too much time and energy 'explaining' their work to the press and the public--and rather than clear public education on technical subjects, too often that means hype and lobbying so the public purse will open wide to them again (e.g., 'look at my major finding!....more research is urgently needed').

Indeed, this is the first reaction of universities and their PR offices when work by their faculty gets published, and it is a near reflex among scientists themselves these days.  And, it works.  We have not invented the issue as something to write superficially critical blog posts about: in the extreme, the likes of the Washington Post have until not long ago simply published university press releases as sent to them, though when this became known they acknowledged the problem and said they would stop this practice.  What happened to journalists as watchdogs?

Watchdog at open door (with labrys). Roman mosaic from the Casa di Paquius Proculus (I 7, 1) in Pompeii. Wikimedia

Yes, of course better science public education would be welcome, since it is true that the public pays for most of our research games and it's good for people to understand the world we all live in. But the problem we raised is not the desirability of an informed public; it's that if scientists are trained by an actor to be even slicker in what they say than they already are, the lobbying aspect will only intensify. We hasten to add that there are excellent science reporters out there, who write excellent stories and don't just basically echo what is published or what an interviewed author says.

Our quibble is not with them.  But our post struck some readers as being ultra stodgy (Twitter even taught us the French word for 'grouch'), as we were taken to be critiquing science journalists and advocating that scientists stay as boring and remote as possible, rather than being trained to be better at explaining their work to the public.  Fine.  We took our lumps.

Then, on Friday we discussed a WHO report on studies purportedly showing the health effects of consuming sugar.  We tried to look closely at that paper and to show what's under the hood of the public story as reported in the science news media.  It was not that the story is an emperor with no clothes, it's that it's all clothes and no emperor inside--but it wasn't reported that way.

We could ask why should it be people like us who give a story such as that one the scrutiny it deserves? The answer is that too much science journalism these days is not critical, in the proper 'evaluative' sense of the term.  We have journalists who repeat stories announced by scientists without examining the stories and calling out scientists on their hype.  We see the same thing in politics, economics, war reporting and so on, as well; too often, journalism means being a mouthpiece for the powers-that-be.  It isn't Alan Alda and acting training that we need.  What we need are more reporters who do their job.

So the fact that those of us who actually try to understand the science stories being told every day, or the science projects being proposed, have to do this dissection, explains why we didn't like the idea of making scientists even slicker in front of the camera.

The problem could be fixed in a more proper way.  Let the scientists do their job, and let the reporters and interested personalities like Alan Alda present the results in a smooth way--that's what they're good at, after all.  But, we believe that better science reporting could be done if more reporters remembered that the main role of journalism in a free society is to pick and ponder at the stories being spun to them, and report what the story really is (or isn't), protecting how the public purse is used, not just carrying the baton as if they were running the anchor leg in a relay race.  And for junk stories based on awful design and over-interpretation--perhaps the most important journalistic responsibility is not to report them in the first place.

20 comments:

  1. But what scientist will ever again talk to a science journalist who has blown the whistle on a sketchy scientific claim? (rhetorical of course)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two answers. First, if it stifles poor science being reported, then good. The author's work will remain in the journal only, and if it has merit will be discussed among other scientists until some better understanding results. The second is that if every journalist probed properly, then the reporting would not be to 'out' bad science but to report realistic science realistically.

    It's true, probably, that the hunger for juicy stories 24/7 would be frustrated, and one could lobby less via the media for grants, so it probably won't happen. And we might need a new cadre of better-trained journalists.

    Still, it used to be that way when science was less of a public circus, and maybe some sobering up would work. Also, journalists could make their careers asking why scientists persist in promoting minimal findings, or why science isn't waking up to the issues and doing something about them. This could motivate science to fix its act.

    So maybe some good could come of it....

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's maybe a positive reason that this has all changed since how it used to be... there's more of a market for science news because, apparently, the demand has increased.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How politicians -- and scientists -- exploit the press. That's certainly one reason political reporters keep asking soft questions. If they actually challenge a president, a senator, a governor, they'll never get in the room again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, so what has to come with your suggestions in today's post is also protections for the journalists and outlets.

      Delete
    2. But, you know, let's cut the funding for PBS and NPR while we're at wars.

      Delete
    3. Or, let's remove the apparent journalistic requirement that stories about science news must quote the author(s) on the papers being written about.

      Delete
    4. That is a very good idea, but then journalists would have to actually understand the science. To some extent that's reasonable but in many cases they simply couldn't, so they have to have the authors explain it. Therein is part of the problem, at least.

      It's somewhat similar to our K-12 problem. We have teachers with degrees in 'education' who teach science, rather than teachers with science degrees and some training in education.

      One alternative is for science to remain in its own little corner of society, and not deal with the public. But for many reasons, not the least including funding and general awareness of the nature of our world, that wouldn't be very good (though it was much more like that not too long ago).

      Delete
    5. I think that some of the best science writing today, hands down, is coming from people who trained as scientists. And they are writing for a wide diversity of venues, not so much mainstream media. It is not all bleak.

      Delete
    6. And the tightening of the academic job market, and of research funding, is driving some qualified people into science writing. Indeed, qualified faculty are at least in some cases, moving away from the unpleasant rat-race of frenetic research to a more balanced life that includes capable public communication of science. That's another very positive sign.

      Delete
    7. Yes yes. But when will this affect the nightly news? I hope soon.

      Delete
    8. Well, perhaps never? Yellow journalism is not even a 20th century term I think. When I was young, I think science almost never was on the news, unless a very big true discovery, like polio vaccines. And, I have to say, science television programs were in dull black-and-white, and were not as I recall sensationalized....but they were informative and captivating without all the glitz. That was, of course, before Carl Sagan & company arrived on the scene.

      Delete
  5. I would love to talk with a journalist about what all this looks like from his or her point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean? You are already a 'journalist' by writing this blog and by knowing how the government grant process works.

      If you ask the question - "how can I make this blog a profitable entity", you know what goes on in a journalist's (or his editor's) mind. A magazine has to find stories that will increase the sales. That is difficult, because the competitor is one click away. The easier way to make money is to get support from the government and government-backed entitites (banks, finance companies). That requires them to follow the party-line as closely as possible.

      Delete
    2. Ok, I would like to talk with a journalist who earns a living writing about science, or politics, about the decisions that have to be made about how to tell a story. Given the pressures and constraints.

      Delete
  6. No matter how I slice and dice the it, I come to the same conclusion that democracy is the root problem.

    Science is paid by the ruler, which happens to be 'demos' in our society. It is just like in historical times, when kings and queens used to be patrons of arts, science and literature. So, scientists need to make their ruler aware of what they are doing. "Human" genome is more special, because it is the genome of the king.

    It also just happens that 'demos' likes simplified and gossipy science stories. What can you do? You have a bad ruler like Galileo got in his time :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every cultural system has its strengths and weaknesses. Science has become an increasingly large component of society, and universities are an industry rather than a luxury or training ground for the upper classes.

      Every system has its faults, too. But that doesn't mean we should just accept those faults and not try to improve them. That's basically what we are thinking when we write posts like this one. Of course we don't claim to have magic cure-alls, if there indeed ever are any. But we think the issues are real....and silence is a form of acquiescence.

      Delete
    2. > But that doesn't mean we should just accept those faults and not try to improve them.

      Agree completely and that is why I enjoy reading your blog.

      Delete
    3. Well, there would be more critical science reporters if more people were willing to pay.

      Delete
    4. There's no easy answer, but in society generally one could say that we get what we are willing to pay for. Even if there were real competition (the God of our country, apparently) and some journalists gave a sober, straight presentation, and others sensationalized, our public would probably favor the latter.

      So, instead of taxpayers paying directly for much of our science, why don't we let the entertainment industry pay for it, since they are reaping the benefits?

      Delete