Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?

[n2doc]

When the news industry catches its own making up the content of a news story—especially involving politicians—the result is typically scandal, firings, and some public soul-searching. Why isn't the same true when it comes to science?

By John Timmer | Last updated January 14, 2010 12:40 PM

The year is only a couple of weeks old, but it's already been a strange one for science news. With a steady flow of coverage on a huge range of complex subjects, it's easy for things to go wrong, and for journalists to come up with material that doesn't get the science right. But a few recent cases appear to involve news organizations that have gone out of their way to get a science story wrong. The news industry tends to respond badly to cases where people make up the contents of their stories—witness Jayson Blair and the fake Bush National Guard records. But, so far, the response to the recent science news-related events has been complete indifference.

The most egregious case seems to have happened at the UK's Daily Mail, which ran an article in the Science and Technology section of its website entitled "The mini ice age starts here." In it, the author argues that we're due for decades of global cooling, driven by ocean currents that the article claims produced the last century's warming—not greenhouse gasses. These facts are ascribed to impeccable scientific sources: the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, and Mojib Latif, a prominent climatologist based in Germany. A substantially similar story, with precisely the same attributions, later appeared on the Fox News site.

There was small problem here, though: Mojib Latif is still alive, and was easy to get a hold of. When contacted, he pointed out that large portions of the report were inaccurate. A prominent climate blogger contacted both Latif and the NSIDC; he quotes Latif as saying, "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up." Referring to "facts" attributed to it by the article, The NSIDC's director said, "This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail. "

So far, Fox News has run a note indicating that its original version included erroneous reporting. The Daily Mail doesn't seem to have responded, despite the fact that one of its competitors ran a story on its poor reporting.

more:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/why-is-the-news-media-comfortable-with-lying-about-science.ars

[joeybee12]

1. Whya re they comfortable with lying about science? Because they're

comfortable with lying.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Although the US media are only slightly better, the UK is notorious for publishing lies.

Funny how often those lies appear prominently on DU.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

4. Daily Mail is the British version of Faux News

I have to say, I think its sheer laziness and lack of knowledge that does it...They hear something that sounds scandalous or potentially so, hear a scientific name and don't bother checking sources and no one that writes these things has more than a high school chemistry background, if that.

[Orsino]

5. They're most comfortable when they don't have to work.

It's really, really easy to get science wrong, and relatively few readers/viewers will be lost.

[Ready4Change]

6. Closest to my thoughts.

The news media no longer investigates. It just regurgitates what is handed to it.

Bias in their reporting is based on who they trust for information, if they take time to decide who to trust at all. Most often they are under heavy deadlines, and verifying info is the last thing on their minds. Anyone who takes time to check facts presented on a press release is considered 'too slow,' and will eventually be fired.

[caraher]

7. It goes beyond the "standard" reasons to disregard facts

Journalists, by and large, do not understand science. So even the honest ones fall back on what they know, which is journalism. And in journalism, there are notions of "balance" that presume that conflicting ideas ought to be treated on a somewhat even footing.

The result is that unscientific rubbish gets the same consideration as legitimate science.

Since most readers don't know science, either, the odds of widespread outcry are slim. Worse still, in light of the mishmash of conflicting reports they receive as "science" reporting (should they bother to read it at all!), the the typical "consumer" of these pieces concludes that science is contradictory - wait a day and they foods they just said were healthy will be declared carcinogenic, injections required to stave off disease cause autism, etc. Given the sheer incoherence of media messages, is it any wonder people tune out and just go with their gut (e.g. getting their climate science from the likes of Steve Milloy if they happen to be right-wingers)?

And it's not just ideological. I reamed out The Nation recently for Alexander Cockburn's December climate change denial piece. My objection was less to his willingness to cast his lot on the wrong side of the issue than with the decision to print patent nonsense about the basic physics of radiative heat transfer. ("Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space." While, of course, the *net* heat flow may run from the warm Earth to the colder greenhouse gases, the fact is that gas molecules in the upper atmosphere radiate IR energy in *all* directions, both into space and back toward the ground... Cockburn is making the case for a view too absurd for 99+% of anthropogenic climate change deniers - the scientific impossibility of the greenhouse effect itself!)

An assertion like that is the scientific equivalent of any number of statements about history or politics that no editor would let see print. The Nation would never print an assertion that, say, the Holocaust never happened; but the existence of the greenhouse effect is as indisputable as scientific fact as Hitlers murders are as historical fact.

[truedelphi]

10. Whenyou have a chance, Pls read my article

(links offererd at response number 9)

[Bjorn Against]

8. Ever notice how many car commercials air during the evening news?

The auto industry is closely tied to the oil industry, their profits are threatened when the people learn about climate change. Remember the primary goal of the media is not to inform us, it is to make a profit. If they tell us the truth their advertisers leave, but if they deceive us then the money rolls in.

[truedelphi]

12. That is it! Ads give power over the M$M press.

Ever notice all those ads for Pharmaceuticals?

Well the research shows that most of us click away from the ads.

But they still serve an important purpose - not one single news team on national TV covered "Single Payer Universal Health Care" during the "health care reform debate" -- even though Obama touted Single Payer as the "best and only solution" back when he ran for the Senate.

[truedelphi]

9. I spent years of my life investigating MTBE and here is

The article that I wrote about press coverage of the politics and the science of MTBE.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/22/143038/082?new=true

When the situation at hand involves Oil, few in the media want any reports that will not favorably shield the Big Oil interests.

And in part, this is because of advertising. When you look at almost any news conglomerate, they are a corporation, and they have holdings, maybe in Sara Lee, but behind Sara Lee is some one of hte Big Oil companies.

So any bad press about Oil means that the ads for Sara Lee coffee cake can be pulled. And every other of the jillions of products that Big Oil owns.

[reggie the dog]

11. becuse Rupert told them what to write?

[Fumesucker]

13. Al Gore claimed he invented the internet..

A lie but widely reported on the M$M as truth and still believed by many people in the USA.

The M$M lies because it is in their interests to lie and they consistently get away with it.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sakabatou]

15. FAIL TROLL HAS FAILED.

[MineralMan]

16. Hi. Bye.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. I call this a fail just for being waaaaaaaay too long

No way in hell I'm slogging through that fail-fest. But thanks for trying by using paragraphs and bullet points.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Back, BACK, BACK!!!

[randr]

19. I guess when you make a mountain out of bullshit

People are willing to believe it is a mountain.

[Lint Head]

20. People who say evolution is not provable are idiots.

super flu bug = evolved

fetus = evolved into full grown living thing

I could list several things that evolve.

Oh, and it's been proven since the days of Christ that the earth revolves around the sun.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. "fetus = evolved into full grown living thing" ?

that actually has little or nothing to do with evolution, as in Darwin's Great Theory of.

[conscious evolution]

21. This pagan hears a rock saying

turn me into a tombstone.

[Catshrink]

22. What a fucking idiot.

enjoy your pizza.

[votingupstart]

25. took the words right out of my mouth..... and OP enjoy your (soon ending) stay.. idiot

[timeforpeace]

23. "Darwinism is... in conflict with Islam" The civilized world is in conflict with Islam.

[AnOhioan]

24. Wow....just wow

Enjoy your (short) stay

[Mari333]

26. can I have what you are smoking?

[Fumesucker]

28. I'm getting really weary of that particular insult..

Carl Sagan was a pot smoker among lots of other intelligent and thoughtful people.

Just because one chooses to indulge in a drug other than alcohol or nicotine does not make one either stupid or ignorant.

Please don't take this personally but that phrase just puts my hackles up because it's such a thoughtless slur.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. Carl's not here, man!

:hi:

[dalter2009]

30. Because they don't have to answer questions from anyone about what they print.

It literally is that simple. when you agree to answer questions from anyone about your public assertions, then you become very careful about your facts.

Since science is by definition for all of us; then anyone who claims to be a scientist has to answer challenges to their public assertions. There is already a way to do this. no1stcostlist.com

Until we use this real public place, we are going to get increasing amounts of lies and misinformation from our so called news media and scientific establishment.

[Festivito]

31. What part of "money rules" do you not understand?

We could use more love of truth in this country.