Media and PUS wider reading Flashcards
What was the article about misinformation in nature called and who was it by?
Article in Nature - Take the time and effort to correct misinformation - Phil Williamson (UEA)
Article in Nature - Take the time and effort to correct misinformation
What principle applies to misinformation?
Brandolini, an Italian programmer, the bullshit asymmetry principle (also known as Brandolini’s law) states that: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
What example does the article on misinformation use?
Example – ocean acidification. An article in the spectator by James Delingpole argued that ocean acidification is a non-problem invented by climate alarmists. Work from 100 researches and 250 peer-reviewed papers were dismissed as no more than a few hours of basic research.
Complaints have been made to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, yet in other cases it is often reluctant to get involved: “In the realm of blogging…there is likely to be strong and fervent disagreement, with writers making use of emotive terms and strident rhetoric. This is a necessary consequence of free speech.”
What suggestions does the article on misinformation give to minimise bullshit?
- Williamson suggests discussion threads provide some opportunity for challenge and informed comment
- Another approach is fact-checking websites such as Climate Feedback. Scientists should support such efforts, even though they don’t have the resources to scrutinize every dubious claim. For greatest effect.
- I suggest that we harness the collective power and reach of the Internet to improve its quality. The global scientific community could learn from websites such as travel-review site TripAdvisor, and set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. We could call it the Scientific Honesty and Integrity
- Tracker, and give online nonsense the SHAIT rating it deserves
Sir Paul Nurse, PRS.
Why an understanding of the process of science is important / special case.
Sir Paul Nurse, PRS. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, February 2012
Why an understanding of the process of science is important / special case.
- The bedrock from which all science flows is reproducible observation and experiment. This means that ultimately what is observed – the data – trumps all, even the most beautiful idea. Scientists need to take account of all observations and experiments, and not just cherry pick data that happen to support their own ideas and theories. Scientific issues are settled by the overall strength of evidence.
- Early on in a scientific study knowledge is often tentative, and it is only after repeated testing that it becomes increasingly secure. It is this process that makes science reliable, but it takes time. This can lead to problems when scientists are called upon to give advice on issues when the science is not yet complete. We see this every day in the newspapers – whether breast implants are safe or what foods are good or bad. The public want clear and simple answers but sometimes that is not possible.
Sir Paul Nurse, PRS. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, February 2012
What needs to change with science education?
Why an understanding of science of science is important?
• People need an education that allows them to fully participate in a democracy that will increasingly require engagement with scientific matters.
Sir Paul Nurse, PRS. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, February 2012
Francais crick institute
Sir Paul Nurse, PRS. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, February 2012
Francis Crick Institute
• When it opens in 2015 it will house 1500 scientists in what may well be the biggest biomedical laboratory building in the world. It will not just be a place for scientific experiments, but also a place for experimenting in the way science is done. As Director of the Institute, I want to create a cultural and economic hot house of scientific ideas and applications, to make exciting discoveries improving our health and driving our economy. I do not want scientists to stay in their labs all the time, I want them to mix with the best minds from industry, the city, the public services, the media, to spark off new ideas to help science benefit us all.
BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science
2011
Professor Jones sets out some areas of concern and associated recommendations.
- An at times “over-rigid” (as Professor Jones describes it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”. Professor Jones cites past coverage of claims about the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of GM crops and the existence of man-made climate change as examples on this point. He suggests that achieving “equality of voice” may be resolved by the new 2010 Editorial Guidelines which incorporate consideration of “due weight” in relation to impartiality. A more common-sense approach to “due impartiality” would also help, he believes.
- Underdeveloped links between science programme makers across the BBC’s divisions. This he recommends might in part be addressed by establishing a regular cross-division science forum and appointing a Science Editor for BBC News to work across a range of output.
- Too narrow a range of sources for stories and a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive, particularly in news coverage. Professor Jones recommends that this might be remedied by better use of external electronic databases that draw from a wide variety of science publications. He further recommends working to improve – and share – BBC contacts with the science community.
Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions
BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science
2011
Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions
The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. The Trust also would like to reiterate that, as it said in 2011, “This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.” The BBC has a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately. Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices.
Communicating climate science report 2013-14
How impactful is traditional media, and therefore its scientific balance?
How impactful is traditional media, and therefore its scientific balance?
The BIS Public Attitudes to Science 2011 survey found that “people’s most regular sources of information on science tend to be traditional media, such as television (54%) and print newspapers (33%)”. It also found that people mistrusted how science was presented in the media: People also have concerns about the reporting of science. Seven in ten agree that “there is so much conflicting information about science it is difficult to know what to believe” (71%) and that “the media sensationalises science” (70%).
Newspapers
James Painter told us that despite “lots of evidence that people distinguish between news and opinion” what worried him was the finding in his research that “that there is an awful lot of uncontested sceptical opinion in the opinion pieces and editorials in much of the right-leaning press”
We are very disappointed by the heavy reliance that the Daily Mail and the DailynTelegraph place on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion
on climate science
Online media
The Grantham Research Institute highlighted how the internet, by its very nature,
allows for inaccurate information to be rapidly absorbed into the mainstream debate:
the primary way in which climate change ‘sceptics’ damage the public interest is
through the spread of inaccurate and misleading material via websites to sympathetic
journalists in the mainstream media, creating an ‘echo chamber of climate change
denial.
The internet and social media are increasingly used by the public when seeking to verify media reports or obtain further detailed information about climate change. The Government and other trusted bodies are currently failing to make effective use of internet or social media to engage with the public and provide accurate scientific information about climate change.
Media, fear, and nuclear energy: A case study
Media, fear, and nuclear energy: A case study
(Koerner, 2014)
A paper debating the effect of media coverage on nuclear energy affects public risk perception and in turn government policy.
Accidents at Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Fukushima overwhelmed scientific claims of safety and security in nuclear energy production. Should the media be more careful about reporting incidents in this way? Or more positive about scientific claims of safety? I think its a good paper to show the impact of media coverage, but also how controversial the topic is, as not reporting these major events, or by sideling them with reassurance about nuclear could be considered going against the freedom of the media.
- Over 70% of the headlines have negative undertones and over 50% of those mention fear for safety, health, the environment, or uncertainty over the outcome of the nuclear incident.
- Scientific information must infiltrate social and political cultures in order to move the current method from fear-based decision-making to a more scientifically driven process without compromising the integrity of scientists and the scientific process.
- Negative media coverage can be linked to public perceptions, signalling fear and distrust for the nuclear industry, and causing reactive policy development. The success of nuclear energy—and other technologies—is highly dependent on public support and good publicity that cannot be achieved without scientists getting involved and publicizing positive nuclear achievements, such as improvements to safety, efficiency, and reliability.
Debates – is science presenting a ‘special case’?
For
• Impartiality definition: Involves no more than the attempt to regard different ideas with detachment from personal opinion - encompassing unbiased, balanced, objective, open-minded and avoid favouring one side over another (Cox, 2007).
Corbett and Durfee 2004:
• ‘for most citizens, knowledge about science comes largely through mass media, not through scientific publications or direct involvement in science’ – suggests reporting should reflect what’s in the literature otherwise people generally have no other way of accessing it – how else would they understand scientific consensus?
• Being impartial may create issue of no strong opinions which means the public may not understand the most pressing areas for public attention.
• Presenting all sides of argument may be good for stimulating scientifically informed debate (counter-argument) – but if all sides are presented this may confuse the public further – important to focus on most important areas to streamline a lay person’s view and make suggested solutions comprehensible. Important to focus on the knowledge that will inform policy.
• Peer review Rigorous process - 1953 – Nature brought in peer-review process.
o Not published until method/results evaluated for errors - 4 out of 10000 papers retracted 2012-now, number remained constant but number of papers increased – better screening.
Debates – is science presenting a ‘special case’?
Against
Ethical points for retaining the normal process of impartiality
- Ethical points for retaining the normal procedures of impartiality
- Journalism has democratic value. The public should be given the information they need in order to make their own rational decisions (McNair, 1998).
- Media consumers rely on the presumption that the information presented to them is free from bias and without spin.
- By not enforcing impartiality, there is the possibility for the public to be fed information which those in positions of power want them to believe. E.g. “global warming is a myth, so buy this expensive Range Rover that’s really bad for the environment.”
- By disregarding impartiality, news providers open themselves up to public scrutiny which could ultimately result in public disbelief and lack of confidence.
Floors in the impartiality of peer reviews journals
o A low level of acceptance for most prestigious journals naturally places those who make publication decisions in a powerful position coined the term ‘gatekeepers of science’ (Crandall, 1982).
o Confirmatory bias - defined as the tendency of some reviewers to accept outcomes that agree with the commonly accepted theories and to discredit those that do not (Mahoney, 1977).
• Bias against Negative Results -studies with a positive result (reject the null hypothesis) are more likely to get published (Dickersin, 1990).
o generates a disproportional Type I error rate - increases the probability of “false positive” results.
o Rosenthal first coined the term “file drawer Problem” (Rosenthal, 1979).
The Matthew Effect (Bartko, 1982)
- 12 research articles authored by investigators from prestigious psychology departments
- resubmitted the original articles to the same journals that had published them 18 to 32 month before
- eight percent of the editors and reviewers could detect the resubmission
- 89% recommended against publishing the articles with the journal editors making the same final decision
- ’ scientific and technical merit – more likely to recommend from a known source
- Matthew effect” in the reward system described by Merton (1968) as an inclination to give disproportionate credit to those who are already famous
- prestige of the author’s affiliated institution
What are all the sources in media and pus?
- Phill Williamson (Nature)
- Sir Paul Nurse (The Richard Dimbleby Lecture)
- BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy
- Communicating Climate Science report 2013 - 2014
- Media Fear and Nuclear Energy
