…and this is a 
I recently argued that to scientists, accuracy is the most important element of a story (surprising, no?) in response to a journalist trying to claim that character and plot were more important. I also tried to make the case that accuracy and an interesting narrative aren't mutually incompatible — and I should have added that accuracy ought to be the number one priority for science journalists, too.
In case you're wondering why so many scientists are distrustful of science journalists, you should take a look at this account from Ben Goldacre. A masters student in psychology gave a talk at a science conference to present her preliminary findings, which, sad to say, were picked up by the Telegraph.
Here's the title of the Telegraph story.
Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists
Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester
Here's the actual title of the press release from the University of Leicester describing the work.
Promiscuous men more likely to rape
There seems to be a significant discrepancy in emphasis, yes?
Goldacre called up the student researcher, and got the straight story: the Telegraph title is factually wrong, they found no statistically significant result corresponding to that claim. And here's the reaction of the investigator:
When I saw the article my heart completely sank, and it made me really angry, given how sensitive this subject is. To be making claims like the Telegraph did, in my name, places all the blame on women, which is not what we were doing at all. I just felt really angry about how wrong they'd got this study.
I think science journalism is valuable and important, and in order to earn the trust of both scientists and the public, it needs to make honest, accurate reporting its chief value. Lately, there have been too many instances of a violation of that trust — and bending a story to more comfortably fit a common and erroneous stereotype is a perfect example of bad reporting.
It probably does produce more contented readers, though. Or at least, in this case, contented male readers.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rrr | July 10, 2009 8:42 AM
I still wish there were some way to force them to apologize on the front page instead of possibly some barely visible footnote somewhere hidden in a random page.
Posted by: sailor1031 | July 10, 2009 8:42 AM
as long (and it looks like it'll be a very long time) as news is considered a saleable commodity, there will be peole who will distort it in order to sensationalize it and titillate vacuous minds and so increase sales. There used to be journalistic standards to protect somewhat against this kind of thing but these days no news organization (not even NPR or the Beeb) is immune. We need smarter readers. Wonder where they will come from!!
Posted by: waldteufel | July 10, 2009 8:43 AM
It's not just science journalism that has sunk to unimaginable lows, it's journalism in general that has died.
Journalists today don't seem to do original research. They just read press releases then go to to lunch. Newspaper journalism in general is a joke, and broadcast journalism is, well, a joke in pancake makeup.
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | July 10, 2009 8:43 AM
Science Journalists are Rapists, claims blogger
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2009 8:45 AM
This sounds like a "too good to check" story. The journalist (I use the term loosely) seized on an opportunity for a provocative story and didn't vet it with an interview with the scientist because that might ruin the intended slant of the story. Besides, we all know that some bitches are just asking for it, right? (At least the Telegraph's reporter seems to think so.)
Is the Telegraph the UK equivalent of Fox News?
Posted by: Robyn | July 10, 2009 8:55 AM
Headline! 'It's really safer if you stay at home in a mumu'
Story at 10.
Posted by: Brian English | July 10, 2009 8:57 AM
But hey, wasn't the kiddy f**ker who did weird shit that recently died a genius? Now that's what I call journalism and whatever.....Never let the truth come in the way of something that appeals to the lowest common denominator, and always cultivate that low level so the media has a ready market...
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | July 10, 2009 8:59 AM
Say what you will, I want to hear what FoxNews' Brian Kilmeade thinks about this study.
Posted by: Shite4BRainz | July 10, 2009 9:01 AM
I used to be a fact-checker at a glossy magazine in New York. There was one editor who argued that the writing was more important than the "facts" and that in some circumstances, you could fudge the details a bit at the altar of good "prose." Needless to say this infuriated the research editor, who smacked down this philosophy at a meeting with two questions: "Why can't we just do both things the right way? Shouldn't that be the goal of every editor?"
The facts won.
Posted by: Tim Awake | July 10, 2009 9:06 AM
That's just sick. One of the professors I knew during my graduate days in psychology had this problem a lot. He did behavioral genetics work, focusing on issues like genetic components of reading comprehension and so forth. Mostly, he wanted to see if we could identify learning disabilities early and develop really targeted, easy to deploy methods of educating all kids to the same level regardless of baseline.
Guess what sort of angle his work and the work of his collaborators got whenever it came up in local papers or the news?
If you guessed "scientist wants to identify and 'deal with' special needs kids" (yes scare quotes got used, a lot), you win a little less faith in science reporting and human decency.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 10, 2009 9:07 AM
I've heard before that the Telegraph has an extreme right-wing bend.
Playing a blame the victim angle, especially when there's no identified victim isn't helping.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 10, 2009 9:08 AM
Surely the *mere facts* aren't as important as what you can get people to believe when you dress things up. I can't imagine why scientists get so hung up on facts when it's obvious that the rest of the world is happy to accept things without being tied to facts.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 9:10 AM
Is this the kind of reporting Mooney wants more of ?
The Telegraph presumably knows its readership. In
bending the factsmaking stuff up the paper is no doubt responding to the opinions of its readers. Seems to be what Mooney wants when it comes to science reporting. Do not challenge the beliefs of your audience so report what they want to hear. In this case misogynistic bullshit.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 9:12 AM
Which will sell more papers, an article on how certain men are more likely to be rapists or an article on how women "ask for it"? Obviously the journalist came up with an answer to this question.
Posted by: Phledge | July 10, 2009 9:14 AM
@ #4: Oh, SNAP. FTW.
@ #9: Thanks for the insider view. Wish it happened like that more often.
I read about this at another source (Shakesville) and though Dr Myers' post doesn't make this clear, the student researcher was in fact a woman. I realize that this shit happens to everyone in the field, but I certainly can't hope (not knowing what I know about human nature) that her gender didn't affect the way her information was treated. I can see it now..."Wait, what? This woman just tried to shift the blame for rape from her slutty hordes and place it on men? She calls this science? It's clearly escapism."
Posted by: DaveL | July 10, 2009 9:21 AM
As well as a surprising number of contented female readers who like to feel reassured that rape is something that only happens to those women, not respectable ladies like themselves.
Posted by: JosherK | July 10, 2009 9:21 AM
What kinds of qualifications are necessary to become a "science journalist"? I'm actually really curious about this, and the entire culture of science journalism... Is there any regulation, peer review process other than the editor? Perhaps it should be required that the investigator be permitted to review and correct any article before it is released. However, I suppose that seems somewhat draconian and tramples first-amendment privileges. *sigh*
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 10, 2009 9:22 AM
Until journalism is held to certain standards and punished properly instead of getting a light slap on the wrist then it will continue... and the papers will continue to be left wondering why we don't go to them for the news or treat them seriously.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | July 10, 2009 9:23 AM
Here's a time when britain's libel laws may well prove beneficial - sue the shit out of them, I say!!
Posted by: Cornellian | July 10, 2009 9:30 AM
These stories always remind me of this:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 10, 2009 9:33 AM
The problem is that this was probably not a science journalist. Most places have dumped the science journalists and the science editors. Not that they were necessarily brilliant to begin with, but when science becomes simply part of the overall reporting (or even part of the entertainment, as appears the case with the Telegraph) we are all screwed.
Posted by: Alex A | July 10, 2009 9:33 AM
I'm lobbying to get this as tomorrow's Telegraph front page headline:
Telegraph Makes Rapists Feel Better About Themselves
Do think there's a chance?
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 9:40 AM
This.
The "news" is about selling advertising space first and foremost. Everything else is a distant second. As soon as the general public realizes[1] the only difference between the New York Times and the National Enquirer is how far they will go to do it, the better off we'll all be.
[1] Real Soon NowTM
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 9:40 AM
Matt #13:
I think you need to give it a rest about Mooney, Matt. You've made your points dozens of times on this and his blog. But this isn't at all what Chris is saying, and you know it. I don't know of any cases where he's gotten scientific ideas wrong--in fact, he's done a great job explaining and educating about global warming, etc. He's never advocated 'reporting what people want to hear'--quite the opposite.
There's plenty you can legitimately disagree with Mooney about--so why make a straw man? That doesn't make you seem very reasonable.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 9:41 AM
Actually in this case it seems he is.
Richard Alleyne wrote the article, and he is the "science correspondent" for both the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. He has had the job less than a year, and before that he was a general reporter on the Daily Telegraph for 8 years.
He replaced Roger Highfield who is now the editor of New Scientist.
Posted by: blueelm | July 10, 2009 9:45 AM
And this is why I no longer read the news. Nothing worth reading. I can make stuff up on my own for free.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 9:47 AM
He has not done a good job explaining about Global Warming. He has done a good job of explaining why the American right reject the scientific evidence that supports AGW. All a bit parochial for those of us outside the US, but then we know Mooney thinks only America matters.
As for knowing that is not what Mooney is saying ? Seems to me he has been going around telling scientists is not only how they say things that matters, but what they say. In otherwords they must sacrifice fact. Maybe you missed that whole framing thing.
Posted by: techskeptic | July 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Question:
Wouldn't the whole business of journalism be better off if the subjects of the articles were given "sign off"? That means anyone interviewed or, in science, anyone whose research is being covered.
Then you wouldn't have to remove the capitalistic nature of journalism in favor of attempting to get accuracy. Yes, this would meant hat papers might do less interviewing and so forth, but at least if this rule were known then people could make an easier assessment of the veracity of something.
I was intereviewed a couple of times for technology pieces, we told them that we would do it as long as we could do the final fact check. One time we were allowed, the other time we weren't. Guess which article was factually correct.
Posted by: PsycGal | July 10, 2009 9:50 AM
It's so much more than just getting science wrong. It wonderfully captures the underlying misogyny in our culture. Promiscuous men are more likely to rape? Bah, who cares? What our society wants to hear is that womyn who wear short skirts are asking for it!
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 10, 2009 9:51 AM
I think the guardian is wonderful. It's nice to look at project censored and Indymedia too, though you do have to be careful with those two.
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 10, 2009 9:55 AM
"There used to be journalistic standards to protect somewhat against this kind of thing but these days no news organization (not even NPR or the Beeb) is immune." -sailor1031 @ #2.
That's not technically true. My news organization is completely immune to this phenomenon for two reasons.
1. Our editor (me) believes that journalism should contain facts. Opinions, presented as opinions, are also acceptable. Journalism should not be a form of fiction. When my news organization is factually incorrect, it is because I screwed up by accident, rather than on purpose.
2. Our publisher is even more old-fashioned than I am when it comes to things like accuracy, fact-checking, and not simply telling lies because they sell more copies.
The downside is that we publish a group of trade magazines geared towards various sub-industries of Canada's automotive aftermarket. In other words, totally useless for general news coverage. If you want to know about the latest regulations regarding limits on volatile organic compounds in automotive refinish products, though, then our coverage is top-notch.
This brings me to my next point: Why the hell is Richard Alleyne writing for a large daily newspaper and I'm editing trade magazines? Maybe I should try printing lies?
Naw, I think I'll hang on to the few shreds of self-respect I have left.
Posted by: co | July 10, 2009 9:56 AM
Funny. There was no explicit mention of the master's student's gender, yet I picked right up on the her in
A masters student in psychology gave a talk at a science conference to present her preliminary findings, which, sad to say, were picked up by the Telegraph.
Posted by: Steve Silberman | July 10, 2009 9:57 AM
Yet, a really well-told science story that is also accurate is often the best way to communicate the importance of the work to a non-specialist audience. The "altar of prose" versus science dichotomy is a false one. When science writing is really good, both forms of accuracy work together.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 9:58 AM
In my experience they don't like doing that, even if asked. It's not that they will 100% of the time refuse, but in my experience, "most of the time" is accurate for refusal frequency.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:01 AM
Yes Matt, we all know you live in England. Congratulations. I believe--and I'm a biologist--that Chris has done an excellent job explaining science while he's discussed politics. I'm referring to Storm World and lots of his essays and op-eds published various places. My reasons? He has accurately, clearly, and persuasively described the research that has produced our current understanding of climate change. What's your specific objection to that statement (more than 'Mooney's an accomodationist jerk and therefore everything he says is crap')?
Right--"not only what they say". So how do you get from there to 'sacrificing fact'? You're making a huge stretch. Again, feel free to disagree with his actual arguments, but stop hyperventilating and stick to reasonable arguments, not trumped-up assertions. Haven't you been saying facts are important?
Posted by: Strohmy
|
July 10, 2009 10:03 AM
What are these 'science journalists' you speak of? Very few news reports pertaining to science are ever even backread by someone with expertise in science journalism. Unless you're reading an actual science publication, the odds are overwhelming that what you're reading was slapped together by some junior reporter who got saddled with a story that all the more experienced reporters dodged.
Major news outlets have been laying off reporting staff for years, and science reporters were among the first to go. They cost too much, and 90 percent of the audience doesn't care about science reporting anyway, so publishers decided it was a frivolous expense.
Is science journalism troubled? Absolutely. But the trouble has less to do with 'science journalists' than with a rapidly dying media industry that is running out of revenue sources and can't afford real expertise anymore. For that matter, even when they do hire real science journalists, the news cycle seldom affords them the time to properly research and vet their stories before going to print. We're getting what we've paid for, folks.
Posted by: Guido | July 10, 2009 10:04 AM
Do you think that sending lots of angry e mails from lots of people would change things? LOTS of bad press in blogs and stuff, refusing to link them, but liking here and to Bad Science.
Posted by: Strohmy
|
July 10, 2009 10:06 AM
What are these 'science journalists' you speak of? Very few news reports pertaining to science are ever even backread by someone with expertise in science journalism. Unless you're reading an actual science publication, the odds are overwhelming that what you're reading was slapped together by some junior reporter who got saddled with a story that all the more experienced reporters dodged.
Major news outlets have been laying off reporting staff for years, and science reporters were among the first to go. They cost too much, and 90 percent of the audience doesn't care about science reporting anyway, so publishers decided it was a frivolous expense.
Is science journalism troubled? Absolutely. But the trouble has less to do with 'science journalists' than with a rapidly dying media industry that is running out of revenue sources and can't afford real expertise anymore. For that matter, even when they do hire real science journalists, the news cycle seldom affords them the time to properly research and vet their stories before going to print. We're getting what we've paid for, folks.
Posted by: rpsms | July 10, 2009 10:06 AM
Isn't what the telegraph did libel?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 10:14 AM
I do not think everything Mooney says is crap, although given his lack of ethics so evidence of late, he would not be that high on my list of trustworthy sources.
Did he do an excellent job explaining framing ? Only if you do, you are the only person. He still has not come out with a cogent explanation of framing, and since he has run away from that idea, I don't suppose we ever will.
Again, you clearly missed all the stuff about framing. I will still be here when you have caught up and are ready to admit your error.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 10, 2009 10:18 AM
tsg@23 said:
This is not cynicism (I presume), any advertiser supported medium's primary job is to deliver a target market to the advertiser. The quality of print media, television, radio, etc, will not improve unless or until the target market demands it.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 10:19 AM
Proper citing of sources (rather than just "scientists say". Oh yeah? Which scientists?) would go a long way to helping this. The problem is readers don't care. It's in the newspaper and that's good enough for them. Until that changes, at least in the US, there's no motivation for newspapers (and news media in general) to do it.
Posted by: pogo | July 10, 2009 10:22 AM
Matt, you need to slow down and chill the fuck out. I wasn't talking about fucking framing--I was talking about global warming. I never said his explanation of framing was 'excellent' or anything else. I said you were making a straw man of Mooney, and now you're doing the same thing with me. What 'error,' exactly, should I be admitting?
This is a thread where people are discussing a completely unrelated issue involving the article in the Telegraph, but you just couldn't resist jumping back on the Chris Mooney bandwagon. Your points have been registered. You're getting really boring.
And you know what? You're starting to act like Kwok. On the thread at Mooney's blog you posted no fewer (as of a few minutes ago) than 34 times--that's fully 12% of all posts on a fairly long thread. In comparison, the Kwokster himself posted only 12 times. Does that embarrass you even a little bit?
Posted by: Raldo | July 10, 2009 10:23 AM
Ben Goldacre seems to spend all his waking life correcting bad science journalism, It's a shame that he seems to be banging his head against the wall for all its worth.
He writes excellent stuff for the Guardian about poor science and the problems that bad reporting can lead to (the MMR scare in this country was entirely media hype), and yet just inches away in the same paper they claim that drinking coffee cures Alzheimers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 10:26 AM
No newspaper is immune from sloppy reporting, be it science reporting or otherwise.
Still, at least The Guardian does not stop Goldarcre from criticizing bad articles in its own pages.
Posted by: ramz | July 10, 2009 10:32 AM
One of the latest issues of Nature had a lot about the problems with science journalism. It was an interesting read, recommended.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 10:35 AM
And I was not talking about global warming.
Earlier you said:
You then went on to mention Storm World. You did not mention framing and yet an honest appraised of Mooney's journalism skills could hardly overlook it. I know why you failed to mention it. It would make your earlier comments look silly.
I am still waiting for you to explain how you missed all that framing stuff.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 10:43 AM
Er, Nope. I don't.
Making up your own facts are you now ?
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 10:52 AM
I did not mean to imply that this should be any different. I was trying to say that the target market either needs to insist on higher standards or stop treating news media as if they have any responsibility to accuracy.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:54 AM
Matt, you're really beginning to wear me out. You apparently fail to see the illogic in what you're asking for, so let me explain in language you'll hopefully be able to understand:
1. I responded to your allegation that Mooney was advocating 'making up facts' by pointing out that that is clearly not what he was arguing for. I did not 'miss' the framing debate, but at no point in that debate did Mooney ever advocate such a thing. If you say he did you're either stupid or lying.
2. You ignored or misunderstood my point and claimed I was defending Mooney's framing arguments. If you scroll back up the comments here you will see I never did so. In fact, I disagree strongly with him about framing.
3. You then informed me that you were talking about framing. Good for you, mate. I wasn't, and you don't get to pretend I was saying one thing when I was saying another just because it suits your fancy.
4. You have now made the ridiculous additional claim that Mooney's journalism can only be understood in the context of his framing--an especially ridiculous argument since he apparently only heard of framing fairly recently.
5. Just BTW you ignored my observation that you're out-Kwokking Kwok--but I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss that.
Posted by: JosherK | July 10, 2009 10:57 AM
@ #41
Thinking out loud in response to your comment:
You're assuming a system that is purely market-driven and free from regulation. Such a system would be tantamount to anarchy. There exists the possibility to prevent most misbehavior through proper regulation. Unfortunately, free speech is an insurmountable barrier in the newspaper industry - one cannot regulate speech. Litigation of libel seems to be the only resolution, though unfortunately a scientist is not generally someone who can afford the prerequisite lawyers for such a pursuit. What about a non-profit organization that scientists can opt-in on? Everyone who wants in pays nominal dues, and in return whenever litigation is necessary, the lawyers are there to help, supported by the scientific community. I'm sure most science enthusiasts in the public (like myself) would be willing to contribute a portion of their monies to the greater good. Scientists prosecuting libel would keep newspapers in check to avoid discrepancies. Then, the best way for newspapers to avoid litigation is getting investigators to sign-off on their stories before going to print. Is there something like this already? (am I speaking out of ignorance?) I'm just a kid, so cut me some slack if I sound stupid :-)
Posted by: Raldo | July 10, 2009 11:02 AM
Matt
True, they do at least give him free reign to attack their own shoddy journalism.
It's the science editors that get me, as they lay out their pages they must realise that one article spells out what good science journalism should be like, and the other is the polar opposite, but both get given equal weighting in the paper. I'm guessing the science editors know bugger all about science, but loads about sensational newspaper headlines selling well.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 10, 2009 11:05 AM
tsg@49
No argument from me. I was elaborating on what I thought was an important point, which can be too easily dismissed as cynicism.
Posted by: carole
|
July 10, 2009 11:08 AM
Today's Telegraph has an article about a complicated crop circle in the shape of a Mayan calendar ("said to be a warning on an impending apocalype") which has appeared in Wiltshire.
The last sentence of the article says "Crop circle theorists believe the patterns are created by UFOs during nocturnal visits, or caused by natural phenomena such as unusual forms of lightning striking the earth."
I despair sometimes.
Posted by: Cornellian | July 10, 2009 11:12 AM
@ Ramz (46): The Nature Podcast (free) had an entire issue dedicated to science journalism (and referencing the article) a couple of weeks ago. Definitely worth checking out.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 11:15 AM
You wouldn't happen to recall the author of the article ?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 10, 2009 11:25 AM
Shite4Brainz @ #9:
The proper response to this is to publish a story alleging that the editor in question is an embezzler, sex offender, carrier of venereal disease, serial killer, or shape-shifting reptilian alien. Just make sure it's entertaining and will sell papers. :P
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 11:40 AM
Hey Matt,
What's the problem--cat got your tongue? I thought you'd be "here" when I was ready to acknowledge your superior intellect. I guess the goalposts got too heavy to move any further.
Pogo
Posted by: Carlie | July 10, 2009 11:42 AM
I don't even see that this has to be specifically about science journalism. I don't care what kind of training or expertise a journalist has, no matter how much they do or don't understand a topic to start, by the time the copy's finished it damn well shouldn't be a story that states the exact opposite of what the story was about. That's shitty journalism, period, and the person shouldn't be blasted for being a bad science journalist, they are obviously an incompetent journalist OVERALL.
Posted by: carole
|
July 10, 2009 11:44 AM
The crop circle article is here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5777580/Mayan-apocalypse-crop-circle-appears-at-Silbury-Hill.html
It doesn't seem to have an author. Maybe it just appeared, fully formed, while we were all asleep.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 11:50 AM
I guess admitting your mistakes is to much for you, you big man you.
What a fucking idiot you are if you think England and Wales are the same place.
I hope you are a better biologist than you are geographer. However I am a generous man. I can put you in touch with some Welsh rugby fans who could dangle you from the Severn Bridge until you learn the difference. I hope you are OK with heights, as it is a long way down.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 11:54 AM
I can see why no one would want their name associated with authoring that article.
Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 12:01 PM
Oh, and Pogo,
Dos i grafu.
Posted by: Knurl | July 10, 2009 12:15 PM
On Tuesday, Bug Girl had a post on exactly the same subject.
These are perfect examples of why I consider almost all journalism to at best be entertainment until I can check the accuracy.
Posted by: Knurl | July 10, 2009 12:25 PM
Here's the link:
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/news-flash-beetles-are-not-the-same-as-women/
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 10, 2009 12:59 PM
That is very interesting; I'd have expected it to be correct.
I see what you are saying, but I don't understand it at all. How does a woman's choice of wardrobe justify raping her? I simply do not even begin to understand that argument.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 1:02 PM
Matt #61:
WHAT FUCKING MISTAKE?
On an earlier post a while back I think you referred to living in the UK. I assumed that meant England--apparently I was mistaken. That hardly makes me an idiot.
Nice--you aren't actually able to answer the substance of my post, so you resort to threats. What a fucking Neanderthal you are.
Look, pal, you don't want to have a straightforward argument, that's fine. You're just an undergraduate, anyway--aren't you? I advise you to get a life and stop jerking around so much on these fora. You might actually learn something.
Speaking of which, time to do some real work.
Posted by: ma | July 10, 2009 1:08 PM
Since you think England and the UK are the same place, then yes, it does make you an idiot.
Nice way to insult the Welsh, Scots and Irish there.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 1:20 PM
Pogo,
One last thing.
What part of "Dos i grafu" did you not understand ?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 10, 2009 1:24 PM
ooooohh, this pisses me off to no end!!! and you just know that misogynist assholes are going to be citing this article as "it's a fact that sluts are asking for it. the scientists proved it!"
which makes me wonder if, collectively as a gender, we can sue the living fuck out of this "reporter". should be possible, what with the British libel laws being what they are.
why?
Posted by: RBH | July 10, 2009 1:29 PM
The distortion described in the OP is an egregious set of errors, but there are also the casual errors that slip in almost unconsciously. For example, in the Guardian's recent story of 'shrinking' sheep there's this little jewel:
Evolutionary pressure says big is best? Gaaah!Posted by: DavidCOG
|
July 10, 2009 1:46 PM
Telegraph = Fox UK for individuals whose vocabulary is a little too expansive to stoop to reading the Daily Mail
I wouldn't wipe my arse on it.
Posted by: LadyH | July 10, 2009 1:54 PM
@#6 "Headline! 'It's really safer if you stay at home in a mumu'
Story at 10."
No, really, it's not.
98% of rapes are commited by persons know to the victim.
Posted by: Alan B | July 10, 2009 2:28 PM
#67 et al. (British Isles geography)
Calm down, guys! People in the UK etc. get confused so one can hardly blame someone outside!
A recap:
England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries. Scotland and wales have their own parliaments but send MPs to Westminster where they can, and do, vote on exclusively English matters. There is no specifically "English" parliament. English MPs cannot vote on matters in the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies.
England + Wales + Scotland is Great Britain.
Add in Northern Ireland (called Ulster but not often nowadays) and you have the United Kingdom.
BUT the term British (which you would think refers to someone from England, Wales and Scotland) also includes someone from Northern Ireland!
The British Isles is Great Britain plus the island of Ireland plus a number of small islands that geographically come within the archipelago including the Isle of Mann in the Irish sea and the Channel Islands which are closer to Brittany and have a French flavour while not being French.
(The Irish do not like the term "British Isles" in the same way that the French do not like the term, "English Channel").
"British Islands" is a legal term for the UK + Isle of Mann + Channel Islands.
The Isle of Mann is especially interesting (to those living on the Isle of Mann and about 17 others).
To quote Wiki (with some gaps and small additions, not marked):
And don't ask me about the Channel Islands ...
Oh yes. And for the Olympics the Irish team includes those from the Irish Republic (Eire) AND Northern Island - even though they are different countries (or part thereof) in the EU.
To get any part of this wrong is totally understandable outside the British Isles. Most people living here could not explain it.
(Wiki is surprisingly good on all of this)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 2:33 PM
(
Which makes someone confusing Wales with England worse if anything.
Posted by: Alan B | July 10, 2009 2:39 PM
#69
"Dos i grafu" = "go scratch"
And your well-reasoned point is?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 2:56 PM
Where did you learn your Welsh ?
That is the literal translation, but the term is not actually used in the literal sense.
It is better translated as "Get fucked".
I would ask for your money back from wherever you learnt Welsh. Or just admit you got it a bit wrong.
Posted by: Alan B | July 10, 2009 3:00 PM
I don't know about the US but in the British press the headlines in the paper are written by someone other than the author of a story. The best the author can do is to make a suggestion but almost certainly it will be over-ridden. Hence, the headline often bears little or no relevance to the story.
Also, the press are, I understand, taught to write so that a story can be pruned easily from the bottom upwards. Thus, the bare bones go into the first paragraph (the headline, as above, can be irrelevant). This is then expanded in the next paragraph and taken further in subsequent material.
It is also used in many stories to get a political point in early in the story where people will probably leave the story, having had their prejudices confirmed. Towards the end of the story you get more of the balancing detail, often to the extent of countermanding the whole story as presented earlier!
Is this dishonest or just taking advantage of the laziness of most readers? The paper will no doubt say that they presented the whole, balanced, story (which, of course they did).
I look on it as a game ...
Posted by: Dale Husband | July 10, 2009 3:18 PM
PZ, you forgot to mention that the Telegraph already pulled the false article by Richard Alleyne off its website. I think they were as outraged by the sexism and dishonesty of Alleyne as you are.
But the damning evidence of Richard Alleyne's misdeed is still out there:
http://www.journalisted.com/article?id=1574126
The Telegraph should fire him!
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 3:53 PM
Hey Matt,
Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks you need to calm down. I remember what it was like to be 22 and full of myself, so I understand. There's no reason to go through life that way, so I hope you get over yourself eventually. Assuming that you're smarter than anonymous posters on an internet discussion board (and especially one devoted to science) won't get you very far--lots of us have much more knowledge and experience than you do, and we put up with cocky students like you for a living. It does get a bit tiresome to have to listen to it here, though.
But I'm glad I'm not the only one subjected to your infantile temper-tantrums:
You really have a fixation about being apologized to for imagined slights, don't you? As I said, get over it. You'll probably live longer (that is, if you don't spend too much with the rugger fans you colorfully promised to sic on me).
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 10, 2009 5:42 PM
Pogo, I'm with you except on the undergrad/22 year old remarks. What the hell does it have to do with anything here? Do you really think undergrads or people under 23 are somehow logically impaired?
Posted by: CJ :) | July 10, 2009 5:53 PM
And people wonder why I don't use my journalism degree.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 5:58 PM
Good point, Marc. I was thinking more about the childish posturing and threats, not any correlation between age and mental capacity. I've certainly had undergrads who I thought were smarter than I am (though depressingly less and less these days).
That wasn't just a taunt, though--I googled him and he is a kid. And I really did always think I was the smartest person in the room at that age, and it really was a good lesson to learn that I wasn't. Plus I just wanted to piss him off.
But you're right, and I feel duly chastened...
Posted by: Katkinkate | July 10, 2009 6:14 PM
If the reporter provided the researcher's name as a reference for the false claim, can she sue for libel?
Posted by: Phledge | July 10, 2009 6:32 PM
@ #32: O dear! Color me embarrassed. Guess that's what I get for trying to participate on the fly...or maybe that's why I usually lurk.
The point of the post still stands: I have a hard time believing that a woman's work on this type of research would be taken seriously, especially given the results (which she admits are preliminary but is there really such a thing as Final Results in Science?).
Posted by: Demonhype | July 10, 2009 7:00 PM
My mother thinks all scientists and doctors are inherenty evil and out to get us all, that they do nothing good, and that doctors especially should all be killed and then everyone would be fine. Part of her "reasoning" is that the scientists are always changing their minds, and does she cite anything reliable for this? No, those publications are too hard for her to read--she's not very academic. Instead, she cites shit she's heard in the mainstream news or her popular print media. "'A' was supposed to be healthy, now it's supposed to be bad for you! They're just jerking us around to make money!" I could tell her about this article like I tried to tell her about some article I read by a doctor about how most doctors think about our current health care system, but all I'll get is "Of course they'd say that, but I don't believe it! They just want money!"
Here's another interesting thing--she thinks she's "reading the studies" when she reads some popular form of media that describes this stuff. I explained to her that I had to try my hand at reading the actual studies in college, particularly in my psych classes, and that shit is thick. My chem teacher told me that even professionals often need some reference dictionaries and such nearby to read them! So there is no way she's sitting down for a little 'light reading' (her only kind of reading) with a stack of straight-from-the-horse's-mouth studies.
I know that's just anecdotal, but it makes me wonder how many other people like Mom read these things or see them in the news and believe that they are making a real and intelligent survey of the "actual studies"? And end up losing respect for science because "those damn greedy scientists just can't get anything straight and thus should never be trusted because they are clearly just making shit up to get money?
I do think science and esp. medicine are being used like a cash machine in very inappropriate ways, but I haven't seen a lot to suggest to me that it is inherent in science or medicine or that it is the direct fault of scientists and doctors (yes, i know they're technically the same). It looks to me more like the inevitable result of unchecked capitalism, where money is infinitely more valuable than facts or human lives.
And I haven't read all the comments yet, but I can see where that one guy (was it Matt?) was commenting on how this is what accomodationists want. I'm not sure accomodationist have any real idea how badly their ideas will screw science. But I do agree that based on their logic (ie: Science should always report things the way the public wants to hear them, or else the public won't like them anymore.), that sounds about right, although I'm not sure they would want to apply that to anything but the supernatural claims. I see no reason they should stop there, however. If science is to be whored to public opinion on matters of God, why not apply it to every other area where people might not like to hear about reality?
Posted by: Heraclides | July 10, 2009 7:03 PM
See also on the bioephemera blog, here on scienceblogs: http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/telegraph_blame_the_rape_victi.php
@25: He replaced Roger Highfield who is now the editor of New Scientist. Eh? The editor of NS came from the Telegraph? Might explain a thing or two? I commented about the writer's title in bioephemera (link above).
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 7:25 PM
Getting back to substance:
#86
I'd repeat my point that the definition of 'accomodationist' used here is a straw man. Frankly, I'd like to see the term disappear, because it isn't useful. Sometimes it means atheists like Ruse who think we shouldn't yell at theists; other times people like Mooney who are more concerned with the context in which scientific debates are 'framed'; sometimes it's used to describe people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins who are actual theists themselves; still others as just a general slur against people who don't agree with the hard-line atheist position endorsed by Myers and Dawkins, etc.
Without going into whether any of those positions is justified, I'd simply point out that there's a hell of a lot of heterogeneity in that group of attitudes. Furthermore the label itself isn't very apt: none of those people are suggesting that theists be 'accomodated' to the extent that religion is given political or educational standing.
More than that, not a single 'accomodationist' I know of has ever said either that journalists should 'make up' facts (as the blustering Matt claimed above), or that "Science should always report things the way the public wants to hear." It is extremely disingenuous to say so, and it makes me think that some of the commentors here aren't really interested in having substantive discussions.
What Mooney and others have called for is framing (i.e. putting in context) ideas so that Joe Public can relate to them. I have my own doubts about whether that's necessary to the extent or in the way Mooney (and especially Matt Nisbet, who I think is full of shit) want, but it's not a crazy idea--as Myers and others pointed out during the initial framing wars, this kind of thing is what good science communicators have been doing all along in various ways.
Right - I'm rambling on, but I guess I just want to caution against making straw men, because that doesn't really get us anywhere.
By the way, I believe in uncompromising integrity when it comes to science education, policy, reporting, etc--which means absolutely no religion mixed in and no mollycoddling theists. I also think that people like Ruse, Miller, and Mooney are worth listening to, if not always agreeing with. I don't see that as 'accomodationist' but maybe some of you do.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 10, 2009 10:58 PM
I can understand what you mean about the wide variety of stances that the term "accomodationist" gets applied to, so I apologize for the indistinct use. My own use of that term usually applies to the people who think that science should avoid challenging people's dearest beliefs, whether because they think it's 'rude' or just because they think it will make people run away from science altogether.
But from everything that I've heard, some of the people discussed here sound like they are very much suggesting that scientists and atheists should both just shut up. I do agree with your statement here:
I just don't see where accomodationist ideals (as I've defined above) would be pleased. No religion mixed in and no mollycoddling theists I can get behind, and making science interesting and accessible to Joe Average is a good idea, but unfortunately the hard facts often fly directly into the face of many, if not most, theists and make them uncomfortable, which seems to be why both scientists and atheists (since the one doesn't necessitate the other) are so often seen as strident, horrible, inhuman monsters*. I don't support suppressing or hiding or downplaying these facts just to make sure theists don't get upset and from your comment I dont' think you support that either, but it's really sounding to me that there is a definite group of people that think it should work that way. I'm not hearing "we should make it fun and accessible for Joe Schmoe", it sounds a lot more like "Joe Schmoe gets all butthurt when any research findings contradict his religious beliefs, so we need to downplay the implications of those findings to avoid this reaction". And that kind of mentality is a huge component of why our educational quality in this country sucks as much as it does. "Ho hum, they think the universe happened all by itself, POOF!, in the Big Bang and then evolution happened and here you are. Sorry, no questions please. The Southern Baptists and their ilk might feel offended and we can't have that."
I don't think they are aware of what a bad idea it is, or that religion to Joe Average is much more literal to them and not quite as much like the vague, emotional-reassurance-based, shared-human-experience ceremonial practice that they seem to have picked up from more academic theologians. I pick up the same kind of thought from a lot of other people that if the story is fictional, then they can't take any inspiration from it--and of course, the "if any is false, all is false" stance of the YEC types takes that even further. I dont' think they realize that the seperate magesteria "faith is off-limits, guys" stance isn't enough for the zealots and isn't actually being practiced by their opponents--observe such obscenities as the Creation Museum, for example. There is no balance to these people, and to give them an inch out of some kind of basic human politeness is to them an admission of defeat and an invitation to march right on into Poland with its blessings. (oops, sorry, invoked Godwin there. :) They are fighting a war in their own eyes, though. Witness Cynthia Dunbar, for example.)
I guess I'm saying, in short, that it's impossible to completely keep religion out of science when so many hold religious beliefs that dictate the state of objective reality. If your research contradicts those doctrines, religion has become involved. It will involve itself without any help from you, and if it does you have a choice: downplay your findings and pretend they don't matter or fight back. If faith was just some kind of emotional human ceremonialism that didn't take absolute doctrinal stances about reality, then it might be different. But we all play the hand we're dealt.
*Another part of Mom's "reasoning": if ghosts and other supernatural phenomena can't be proven using current scientific methods, then science needs to relax it's standards so she can assure herself that her favorite beliefs are objectively true. Apparently, she doesn't much care if they actually are true, just that science has a duty to make it appear so. Of course she doesn't say it that way--instead, it's more along the lines of "it's another way of knowing and if science is too close-minded to include magic then it's no better than the psychics and fortune-tellers it so despises."
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 11:30 PM
I think we're pretty much on the same page. I certainly don't think or support the notion that scientists or atheists should STFU. I agree we should be challenging people's dearly-held beliefs. I'm absolutely with John Lennon on that one.
But how we get there is, like it or not, a matter of political strategy--no more or less than bringing about civil rights or getting a liberal back in the white house was. I guess where I see some value in the argument of Mooney et al. has to do with the way we challenge those beliefs. I think their basic point is that if we want to change minds, telling folks they're idiots is not a great way to do it (I'm not saying that you advocated doing so--but I did see that exact position on another thread here earlier today).
Some people have made the point that there's no evidence that the soft-line approach works any better than the hard-line one. That may be true. In my experience (teaching science at a Bible-Belt university) a more gentle approach has worked extremely well. But why not have different people pursue different strategies and see what happens?
On this blog we have people passionately arguing for the gloves-off approach. On Mooney's blog its the opposite. It's fine to argue that one approach or another is better--if that's what you think. What I regret is the degree of vituperation that is often expressed towards folks who have a different--though reasonable--position.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 11, 2009 12:21 AM
Pogo:
Mooney IS advocating "telling people what they want to hear" with the framing nonsense. This post details an example of the pathological nature and effects of "tell them what they want to hear" as an approach to describing science to the public. While Mooney does not explicitly say "make stuff up," telling people what they want to hear, as standard operating procedure, leads almost invariably to doing so.
All that global warming stuff is just a red herring.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 11, 2009 3:53 AM
I think both the hard line and soft line methods work well together, because people think in so many different ways. One person will be well convinced by a quiet respectful tone, while a person who might completely ignore a quiet tone as an admission of defeat will be forced to reevaluate things by a more confrontational attitude that tears a nice hole right in the armor. I've read testimonies over the years that go both ways. The mix of people who practice one or the other method is probably more effective than if everyone just shouted or spoke politey.
I agree with Azkyroth that if you are committed to telling people what they want to hear, it will end up having the effect of making things up. But this trend among reporters that plot and character are more important than reporting facts is amazing to me. If you're reporting something, your viewers are trusting you to inform them truthfully. It is possible to be entertaining without fudging facts (or eliminating them entirely and making up your own). That goes beyond simple butt-kissing of the public, which fools itself as much as it does the public, and actively embraces presenting lies as facts on a conscious level. I'm suprised such people dare to refer to themselves as reporters at all.
Posted by: mjaybee | July 11, 2009 7:07 AM
This kind of pseudoscience is not "science", per se, but more along the lines of "cargo cult science" as defined by Feynman.
Posted by: Mike Wagner | July 11, 2009 1:59 PM
If you're going to be interviewed by reporters, don't let them be the only one in the room with a recorder.
If a publication has taken your work and mangled it into an unrecognizable headline-grabber tabloid junk story, give the managing editor a call. Be polite. Record it. (You can do this in Canada and the US without the other person's permission - other countries may differ)
If it is not resolved to your satisfaction, publish the recording on YouTube. The publications competitor's will do the rest of the work for you.
Posted by: 2012 The End of The World | July 14, 2009 1:07 PM
This report pretty much states the obvious.
Posted by: 2012 The End of The World | July 14, 2009 1:09 PM
This report pretty much states the obvious.
Posted by: 2012 | July 18, 2009 9:55 PM
Leave it to scientist to make some obvious discoveries!
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | July 18, 2009 10:01 PM
Leave it to people who believe the world will end in 2012 to be batshit fucking crazy!
Posted by: bose headphones | July 20, 2009 5:16 AM
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings.
Posted by: bird chan keng yik | July 29, 2009 2:58 PM
just repeat history like the argument of duality of light