|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Science, hype, and the troublesome "balance" habit
August 12, 2008
- Posted by
By
Maija Saari  The comment was a point of evidence, volleyed politely at me by as part of some small talk over an appetizer.“Of course, scientists have yet to settle the issue of climate change.” My brain rifled through my quiver of counterpoints, filtering for those I thought we might have in common. What about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What about David Suzuki and Al Gore? “Do you, by chance, read the National Post?” I asked. We don’t often consider what people do with our work, but my friend reminded me how much journalism matters. That Saturday's national edition front-page headline read “A coup for junk science; Gore’s ‘truth’ nets Nobel prize”. Journalist Terence Corcoran lumped Gore’s prize with other “fringe movements and futile causes” that have seen Nobel’s favour in the past. Gore was mentioned in nine items in the Post that day, for a total of over 7000 words. “Straight news” about the announcement ran for 411 words on page A18 and consisted of the verbatim statement from the Nobel Prize committee itself. Four negative opinion pieces about the award – including Corcoran’s front-page piece and an item by neoconservative political commentator David Frum – took up over 2800 words. Four additional news stories included one which focused on details of a legal judgment finding fault with the veracity of Gore’s documentary, two stories covering speculation about a possible presidential bid, and a peripheral mention (although right in the lede) linking Gore’s win to a longer story about another annual prize awarded for controversy in science. Silly Nobel organization. As Frum’s headline read, including “panic-monger” Gore in their honour had just “subordinated science to hype.” Wait a minute. The science is hype? I’ll ask again. Do you believe climate change is really happening? Can you think of a few facts to support your claim? A rebuttal editorial, critical of climate change deniers, did run. On Monday. And yes, the Post does have some positive coverage on environmental issues. Science creates new knowledge. The process of determining if an idea – a theory – holds true in the natural world has been honed since The Enlightenment and is a pretty impressive toolbox. The coolest thing about the scientific method – and the peer-review system that requires scientists to prove they've followed it rigorously – is its ability to minimize the effects of investigator bias on their results. In other words, the procedures scientists employ are designed knowing that human beings might just have a personal stake in the results and may see what they want to see. That means a lot of dashed hopes and trips back to the drawing board. That’s the process. Sometimes the facts are hard to swallow. And others might have an interest in perpetuating our denial. Think back to convenience store owners, bars and Big Tobacco. The scientific theories connecting smoking to cancer hit them all where it hurts. It’s hard to break a habit. So I wonder how journalists will react to the hypothesis that climate change coverage is so variable because the data are actually pushing innovation in the way we do our craft. To be fair, this drive isn’t new. Journalists have always struggled with science stories. We don’t have a high level of science literacy. Generalist newsrooms don’t tend to understand the scientific method and aren’t great at judging the difference between a translator and a researcher, or where a scientist might fit inside her family of peer-review. Our standard practice of lining up a few sources and letting them duke it out conceals the important fact that scientific theories are not wishful guesses on the part of self-interested speakers. Because of our journalistic practices, it has become sufficient to raise doubt about the science simply by painting the source himself with some sort of taint. Balancing one source (the scientist) with another (opposing scientist), creates our own court of peer-review, sans the collective body of scientists with expert knowledge about the area. Intended or not, our routines perpetuate a public impression of science that’s fundamentally inaccurate. And public impression matters. Cell biologist Ken Miller knows this all too well. His was the American biology textbook slapped with a warning sticker by a school board because its content on evolution threatened local people who believe in creationism. Miller took on the intelligent design community in court. He won. People assumed the judge was a liberal. He was conservative. Sometimes it’s so hard to believe. Miller works really hard in the public sphere, fighting what he perceives as an attempt to put a wedge of doubt in our trust in the scientific method. He and others hammer away at the big difference between journalistic facts (the opinion of a speaker), and scientific facts (the result of rigorous and reviewed studies). His website and video of a public lecture articulate this very clearly. He’s not alone. In the July/August issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, Christine Russell offers expert guidance through the minefield of the climate change beat. Andrew C. Revkin at The New York Times writes openly about the professional challenges of reporting climate change on his Times blog and in the CJR. He takes a critical look at coverage over time. He notes how the natural ebb and flow of the scientific process can clash with journalistic practice, generating a “whiplash effect” that might be the source of some public confusion. Their decisions are built upon data. And the data have already been through a lot. Generalist journalists might want to think about that the next time a science story lands on their desks or an unsolicited denier op-ed from some think tank shows up in their email box. How many scientists and journalists will it take to change standard practice? Trust in science isn’t the only thing at stake. And yes, my friend did read the Post. It showed up for free in his driveway. Maija Saari is a professor of journalism and researcher on science journalism at Wilfrid Laurier University and a J-Source contributing editor. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It would be great if this rational piece generated discussion among real journalists, but it seems that, as with anything to do with climate change, it has been hijacked by the denial camp, with its thoroughly discredited nonsense and ad hominem attacks.
The simple fact is that close to 98 per cent of the world's scientists who study the issue, along with all the world's major scientific institutions, agree that climate change is happening and that humans are major contributors.
And, of course, there are the daily news reports of things that are already happening, which one would expect journalists to read.
Evidence for the falsity of the AGW hypothesis is only a Google away; Many of the previous posters have brought up evidence, but even a journalist unschooled in science might wonder why the IPCC has redacted the claim that the 1990's was the warmest decade on record (it was the 1930's), NASA space probes report the temperature on Mars is rising and falling in concert with the temperature on Earth or historical data shows the world was actually much warmer in the past (Vikings raised cows and practiced croft farming in Greenland between @ 800 AD and 1400 AD. It is much too cold to do so today).
Sadly, the initial article demonstrates the professor simply follows the crowd, and is not in the habit of independent thinking; supposedly the reason for universities to exist.
If journalists were taught to perform investigative journalism and critical thinking on issues (sadly, something that would seem lacking in this particular program based on the article), then journalism would not be held in such low repute and people would not be viewing the Blogosphere as the true source of accurate information.
Mind-boggling!
Your ignorance on this issue.
Al Gore is a scientist?
Thought he was a politician.
David Suzuki is an envirionmentalist?
Thought he was a fruit-fly scientist.
The IPCC...you have got to be kidding
Thoroughly discredited and bordering on junk science.
Do you do any research?
Or just regurgitate talking points?
Unfortunately, journalists like yourself often equate the truth with the opinion held by the majority. However, the truth is not a popularity contest. The IPCC, Gore and the rest are a publicity exercise, but there are still many, many scientists who doubt the propaganda because they indeed believe in the scientific method. Journalists' understanding of science is almost always flawed.
"What about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What about David Suzuki and Al Gore? "
"I’ll ask again. Do you believe climate change is really happening? Can you think of a few facts to support your claim?"
Quotes like these illustrate that you yourself have a totalled flawed understanding of the scientific method.
Finding facts to support your claims means nothing. The scientific method requires that you seek facts to falsify your claims, and believe me, there are many, many, many such facts that cast doubt on anthropomorphic climate change theory.
"...the Post does have some positive coverage on environmental issues"
Positive meaning negative? They are only correct when you agree with what they say? Many scientists are questioning the IPCC's methodology and conclusions. If the media is under some obligation to accept without question the conclusions of a panel loaded with bureaucrats, we are in big trouble.
Answer these.
Has the earth warmed since 1998? If not then how can anyone claim that CO2 is a climate change dirver?
Have Argo and Aqua, which take actual measurements, shown any warming?
Why does James Hanson keep making temperature adustments and also keep fighting against actual measurements?
Are the temperature monitoring stations subject to the urban heat effect? If so, why are those values used?
Is Antartica actually gaining ice mass contrary to 'Journalists' writings?
Who broke the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC? Why was it breakable? What does that say about the IPCC? What does that say about YOU?
There is so much stupidity out there, mostly from progressives who believe big government is benign and helpful.
Take a look people. Enviromentalists have managed to KILL more people than communism. They are the most effective and evil group ever to roam the earth as they do not govern any nation. Yet, their tyranny rules our lives. Their ban on DDT forces malaria on poor black Africans and kills 2 million a year! Yet you want these murderous liars to run my life.
The fight is on.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion of journalism’s role in reporting science stories.
“Climate change” as used in your article is an inadequately defined issue. There has always been climate change. Depending on the context and measures, today’s climate could be considered to be substantially different from that of 10 years ago, 500 years ago and 10,000 years ago. I don’t believe that you intended to be promoting the idea that over time there should be no climate change at all. Implicit in your article is the idea that climate change means man-made changes impacting on the earth’s climate.
So, how does a professional journalist avoid creating or perpetuating an inaccurate or confused public impression on scientific matters: the projected extent of man-made climate change being the case in point? There is no guarantee that the journalist will always be right, but one key tool is to focus on the attributes of good scientific process and method. Has the theory been peer reviewed and published? Has it been in circulation long enough for peer reviewed and published counter-theories to have come forth? Have empirical results been consistent with the theory? Have important parts of the methodology subsequently been proven to have been in error? Are the scientists disinterested? What are the ideological and political pressures that could reasonably be impacting on the scientific process? If the journalist can evaluate these questions of process then she will have a reasonable foundation for reporting scientific issues in context to her readers.
Allen Logue
Al Gore and the IPCC are somewhat famous for their use of the "hockey stick" graph which supposedly proves AGW.
To read how a Canadian challenged the theory and how climate change politics works read this account.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
What about the IPCC, you ask? You know most of those panelists are time serving Third World bureaucrats and not actual scientists, right? Who have a vested financial interest in seeing the prosperous First World bankrupted?
"What about David Suzuki?" He preached overpopulation for decades and now has five kids. Oh, and he's a hypocrite. In his own words:
"I'm not getting any money from my foundation. I'm getting my money, the foundation gets its money, from ordinary people. We don't take government money, corporations have not been interested in funding us."
Yet, oddly enough:
"...the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.
"The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants."
http://tinyurl.com/56sjln
http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267
Al Gore? The guy who owns shares in "carbon credits" company (the modern day equivalent of selling papal indulgences), and among many other environmental sins, just bought a big new boat that isn't as "environmentally friendly" as he'd claimed?
"Let’s not forget: Gore made similar claims about the environmental benefits of the solar panels and other “green” additions he made to his 10,000 square foot home in Belle Meade, a cushy neighborhood in Nashville, Tennessee. The environmental savings promised from his “investments” failed to produce the results that he touted. In fact, his “energy efficient” renovations to his home actually INCREASED his electrical consumption by 10% rather than producing the promised reductions. Ultimately, Gore’s water-based excursions on his giant houseboat may prove more environmentally friendly than his fleet of limos, his private jets or his mansion. Perhaps the B.S. One will never live up to its nickname, but the jet ski on the boat is clearly powered by something other than solar or bio-diesel."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/2/
Or the Al Gore who used CGI effects from a Hollywood film to illustrate his movie?
That Nobel Committee indeed: once you've handed a Peace Prize to a terrorist, it's pretty hard to top yourself...
Oh, and I got yer peer review right here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2IyMDE3NDMzYzgxMGM1ODMxNzU2N2U2ZjM0NjQyMWU=
And don't forget the Skokal Hoax.
With people like you teaching our future journalists, I tremble for our nation.
I wish I felt optimistic about journalists understanding the scientific method or even the methods of science. But, again and again, be it AIDS prevalence in the general population, the efficacy of alternative medicine, deadly water bottles, toxic shower curtains or cancer-causing cellphone radiation, reporters get more wrong than right.
The fundamental needs and methods of pedestrian journalism are so opposite science that it is a marriage made in Hell. The pseudo balance of "he says, but he says" is a recipe for disaster when the reality is a large body of scientists and scientific evidence artificially balanced by a small collective of fringe thinkers and hucksters.
The reporting of low risk, high impact events throws the public's spidey sense totally out of whack and the lack of asking the simple question, "how do you know that?" turns what should be non-stories into headlines.
I have given up expecting it will ever change, unlike the climate.