Working at an educational publication, I’m relatively far from the eye of the science vs. journalism storm, but seeing the way that my colleagues at the Higher are asked to turn their skill to a range of research specialisms gives me some idea of the reasons behind the allegations of sloppiness and illogicality thrown at the hacks.
My current conclusion is that it is the nature of the genre; the minute format, the high-speed research, the obsession with personal anecdotes which renders quite a bit of reported science terrible.
A fellow fellow has written on biomarkers for the Guardian, to critical reaction from a biochemist who swears that the writer completely missed the point. This is not due to lack of scientific knowledge as far as I can tell – the writer is a specialist registrar.
This is not to excuse the journos. They have to be clearer about the intentions behind what they write. If a basic graph is printed that isn’t peer reviewed and at best indicative of a trend, then this should be flagged up loud and clear (perhaps these would come in handy). No journalistic piece can ever be conclusive – it’s produced by one person in a few hours tops. And readers should be reminded of that.
I once saw journalism described as the "first rough draft of history". First rough drafts are not always accurate. They give the big picture. But news isn't news if it's not new, so it's impossible to run everything by specialists and to ensure reliability throughout. Tentativeness must be expressed.
The same goes for other fields: see tabloid stories on house prices, immigration, Europe, etc, all equally misleading and ignorant, and arguably equally damaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment