Science Journalism: A Bias in Favour of Truth

 
Peter McKnight is a science journalist who writes for The Vancouver Sun. Don't hold that against him, he's actually one of the most thoughtful science journalist around. Readers may recall that we had a discussion about his views concerning Marus Ross and his Ph.D. in geology [Peter McKnight of the Vancouver Sun Weighs in on the Marcus Ross Incident and Peter McKnight on the Marcus Ross Issue].

I disagreed with Peter back then but I agree with his latest column from last Saturday [what we need here is a bias in favour of truth]. McKnight argues that the tendency toward balance and fairness in journalism is hurting science journalism. When it comes to science there aren't always two legitimate sides to every story. For example, in the evolution vs. creationism controversy, journalists do not have an obligation to give equal time to creationist nonsense.

Similarly, when I write about evolution and creationism, I am invariably accused of bias -- a lack of balance -- for explaining that evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not. To repair this problem, certain letter writers tell me that I should simply present both positions equally, without editorial comment, and let my readers decide the truth.

Doing that would amount to an abdication of my role as a columnist, since I have a responsibility to offer an opinion. It would also represent an affront to science, but I understand where my letter writers are coming from; journalism has long promoted the view that journalists ought to present both sides in a dispute and keep their opinions to themselves.

I agree. Science journalists should not be simple reporters of fact. They need to interpret those facts and put them in context. They need to contribute a certain added value to their reports, otherwise we might just as well read the original press releases or the abstract of the paper.

Despite this evidence from more than a century ago, false balance came to dominate journalism and still exists today. Many reasons for this have been identified: In our increasingly partisan era, journalists are ultra-sensitive to accusations of bias, so they ensure balance to ward off such allegations; some journalists don't have the time -- and some are too lazy -- to conduct a thorough investigation of an issue, so it's easier to just present competing opinions; and some journalists don't have the expertise to filter through various opinions and determine which ones are based on solid evidence.

This last reason is particularly common in science journalism, since few journalists outside of publications like Scientific American have backgrounds in science. Yet, remarkably, former New York University sociologist Dorothy Nelkin noted in her book Selling Science that some journalists are hostile to science reporters who have science backgrounds, because "journalists trained extensively in science may adopt the values of scientists and lose the ability to be critical."

I can understand why average journalists are afraid of real science journalists. It's because good science journalists can do something that the typical non-science journalist can't do. That goes against the fundamental credo of the profession; namely, that journalists can cover any story because they're trained to report the facts. (Are they also hostile to those journalists who are knowledgeable about the law, medicine, or business—or is it just science?)

I agree with Peter McKnight about the need for science journalists to inject their own (informed) opinion into their articles. But I want to take it one step further. From my perspective, the most annoying science articles are not the ones that give inappropriate "balance" to the ideas of kooks. The worst ones are those that show no informed skepticism at all but merely report whatever the scientific paper says. I want my science journalists to do some digging from time to time, which is why I criticized an article in the "TRUTH" issue of SEED last month [Silent Mutations and Neutral Theory].

It's complicated. I want science journalists to give us an informed opinion. I don't want them to go out of their way to present contrary opinions just for the sake of "balance" and "fairness." On the other hand, I do want them to present contrary points of view when the news they're covering is itself biased and unfair.

It's tough to be a science journalist these days. They don't get no respect from either their journalist colleagues, or their science colleagues!

[Hat Tip: Jason Spaceman on talk.origins]