Science and the Media: Rewrite

When I wrote my first blog about the problems with science and the media I put a lot of blame on the people and their lack of desire to actually read about science.  I argued that if people really want to read about science that they need to demand that the media cover it because the media will cover whatever sells them newspapers.  While I still believe that some fault lies with the people, after looking at it more in depth, I think that the media’s coverage of science is really the original problem that leads to people not wanting to read about it.  In a 2005 article for the Guardian, Ben Goldacre argues that “in their choice of stories, and the way they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their own means”.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/badscience.research He goes on to describe how science stories usually fall into three categories, “wacky stories, scare stories, and ‘breakthrough stories’”.  Newspapers and other media sources want people to buy their content because they are seeking a profit just like any other company, and they believe that the best way to do this is to sensationalize stories and create headlines.  Basically, they believe that people are dumb and will only read something if it scares them or is out of the ordinary.  I think that this is wrong. 

The media is supposed to educate us and give us well researched information.  It seems like in today’s media whirlwind, journalists try to put together the most sensational story as quickly as possible without actually doing the research and legwork necessary for a factual, well written piece.  There are so many different media outlets now because of the internet, that each one tries to scoop the other and that leads to cutting corners.  For example, Goldacre points to an experiment which showed a possible link between the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism in 12 children.  The media jumped on this published experiment and totally blew it out of proportion, which scared people into not getting the MMR vaccine.  No other scientific data supported these findings, and today most people agree that there is no link between the two.  However, the media reported on it because it created interest with the people and once one outlet started talking about it, the rest felt like they had to follow or get left behind.  Because of the new instantaneous culture we live in, the media feels like it doesn’t have time to put in the time and effort necessary for a good piece which leads to many mistakes and sensationalizes of unproven issues.

Another issue with the media’s coverage of science is that they do not use any real science when writing science articles.  They eliminate statistics and any discussion of the actual experiment itself.  The media does not believe we can handle these things so they just talk about whatever possibilities come out of the experiments.  Goldacre talks about the scare that mobile phones could hurt you through radiation.  While there were many articles about this scary topic, not one talked the actual data and what the scientists actually were looking at.  Journalists tend to extrapolate on little details or small possibilities and turn them into huge deals because that sells papers.  Without giving any background on the actual science, people have no choice but to believe them because they can not make any inferences on their own.  While people may not understand the nitty gritty science involved, the media should at least give people the option to look at the results for themselves.  People may need to improve their knowledge of science to understand certain issues, but the media does not even give them a change.  We look to the media for well researched information and facts, and they are failing us, especially in the field of science.