Thursday, May 10, 2007

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]

12 comments:

  1. I think that in a short news story there isn't always room for additional views. For example in a research publication (original or review) you can be totally honest and briefly mention that there is another paper that isn't quite in line with your research/opinion, reference it, and have people look it up themselves. In a newspaper, if you say: "Oh, but so and so disagree with what I just wrote" it just sits there open-ended and confuses people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm ... I think I disagree with you, Eva, but I'm not sure.

    Let me try and re-word my position so you can see if you agree or not.

    When reviewing a scientific paper, a good journalist will bring her personal expertise to bear on the story. For example, if you are reviewing one of the many papers that "refutes" junk DNA you owe it to your readers to point out that the scientists are misusing the term "junk DNA' or that their opinions are not widely shared. This is what Imean by responsible and informed journalism and I think it's what Peter McKnight means as well.

    Do you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As you almost surely know, Mooney & Nisbet, yuppie framing geniuses extraordinaire, have announced their upcoming grand national tour. They will be marketing their special brand of MANDATORY framing wisdom. "No salvation outside the holy church of perception management and psychobabble." Ditto for their new website framed as speaking science - possibly a sub-category of framing science? Chicken, chicken, chicken. Framing, framing, and more framing for stumbling scientific bunglers who just don't know the territory of "interaction effects and indirect impacts."

    One experimental observation of some significance. Not one post on the new "speaking yuppie" website since its grand announcement two days ago. Bad framing maybe?

    Why waste any more brain cells on such a non problem by such lab coated scurrilous yuppies who surreptitiously denigrate science while advancing their petty careers. "Are you incompetent about the great new science of overcoming cognitive miserliness, let US help you."

    At a time of the greatest peril to the human experiment, these superficial yuppies preach their crypto conservatism while adding to the well funded attack on scientific evidence and predictive power. George Lakoff, playing the literary fool (i.e. the wise cognitive uncle), took the weak Daddy Democratic party to the linguistic woodshed, and delivered a titillating academic fart.

    M & N weren't left with much of a career choice, so they went for the peeyar top and engaged all science. They are desperately trying to milk some scientific controversy into citations and career advancement in framing studies.

    The upshot of all this flapdoodle to the schmuckery, (i.e. cognitive misers) - "Sheesh, if those scientists can't even get their friggen words right, how can they give us any valuable information about the future?"

    Who are these petty careerists really helping?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I agree with your example. I think I was thinking more about
    reporting on the majority opinion and leaving out the minority. For example let's say there are ten
    papers about a newly developed drug, nine inital trials find the same effects, one finds something else. A short news article would probably just summarize what's in 90% of the work, but something more in depth would also refer to the other study. Or even when it's not as mucha difference as 90-10, a lot of news articles are only about one aspect (eg. caffeine is good for you, because it prevents Parkinson's would be (and has been) one news article, but of course there is much more to it. In a short article you wouldn't go about listing all the other effects of caffeine, but in something more comprehensive, you would. At some point it has to be the responsibilty of the reader to realize that the article they're reading might be only about one aspect, without having it explicitly mentioned.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. gerald spezio

    M & N weren't left with much of a career choice, so they went for the peeyar top and engaged all science. They are desperately trying to milk some scientific controversy into citations and career advancement in framing studies.

    That sounds pretty accurate to me but you won't catch me saying anything like that in the great framing debate.

    After all, I'm just a measly scientist. What do I know about teaching science compared to experts like M & N?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's interesting that in much science reporting there is actually the opposite problem, namely far too much effort to identify controversy where there is none. Again and again, we see claims that such-and-such a finding overturns this-or-that long held idea. As you note, the recent spate of reports of "some non-coding DNA may be functional, scientists shocked" kind of reporting is a notable example. I realize that "another 2% of the genome shows some indication of potentially being functional, scientists who know even basic details about genomes are not surprised" isn't quite so sexy. But when you report about science (versus, say, celebrity news), you should have some extra requirement to get the details correct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm becoming a great fan of Sandwalk and will begin to highlight my ignorance with some posts.

    I'm a high school science teacher who truly wants to omit the false positives. I recently read your post on the three domains. If only I had seen it back in November and could have used it for my AP Bio class! The fact is I've been out of science classes for almost 15 years. We [science teachers] expect our texts to be reasonably accurate [and they are --- right?] but simultaneously I abhor teacher an inccuracy or falsehood. Removing them from a brain is nearly impossible! Hence why I love your blog and PZ Myers at Pharyngula. It provides access to some great science.

    I simply find so much of what we teach is taught as 'the truth' rather than the 'path to truth'. I hope you don't mind that description.
    What do you think of the 'Truth and Science' article at SEED?
    James

    ReplyDelete
  8. 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."

    It's sentiments like the one described above that come very close to making me wish stupidity was a crime punishable by death.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paisano DiPietro, framing genius Matt Nisbet of science flogging infamy considers Dorothy Nelkin's work as the Rosetta Stone of science studies. See his commentary last year on why the entire Sokal Affair "proved nothing." http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/04/the_science_wars_are_over_long.php

    ReplyDelete
  10. Grazi mille, Paisono Spezio! That made quite an entertaining read, and seeing "social constructivist" types essentially disavow any responsibility for the emergence in right wing obscuritanism is, to put it mildly, fatuous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Erm, I mean "Paisano". I almost got it right!

    Been a long time since I've been around any fluent Italian conversation, mi dispiace.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerald said "yuppie framing geniuses extraordinaire, have announced their upcoming grand national tour."

    I hear they have planned a concert too: "Frame Aid" to benefit clueless scientists and help defray the cost of remedial communications courses.

    ReplyDelete