Poor UK journalism on science topics

ToneControl

 UK papers rarely report science well. 

There's a book exploring this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book) - the book's theory is that  too many journalists who cover these stories are liberal arts graduates

Today the Independent reports that Bank of America have given their opinion on the probability of us living in a computer simulation, 

Who do these journalists at the Independent say that BOA took inspiration from? They cite Elon Musk (high-profile founder of Tesla cars and other tech companies) - who has been talking recently about this 

The Independent's journalist mention  "Its claims also appeal to the work of a philosophy professor from the University of Oxford. In 2003, Professor Nick Bostrom"

appeal to?  Musk is just popularising Bostrom's theory from 13 years ago, yet they are giving Musk the credit

 Nick Bostrom - a Swedish Academic at Oxford proposed this hypothesis in 2003, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis   - It was polished for a few years, and has been well known in serious scientific circles for over 10 years - it was in New Scientist in 2006 http://www.simulation-argument.com/computer.pdf, other bits of work have been done since (e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/…/mg21628950-300-the-idea-we-…/

imagine you came up with such an important idea, fully develop it, then 13 years later a rich company owner discusses it, and the media tell the world that your role in the idea was minor. 

Fortunately, some newspapers employ better, more scientifically-aware journalists: http://www.newyorker.com/…/what-are-the-odds-we-are-living-…

stickyfiddle

I first heard the same suggestion well before 2003, so it's not like Bostrom invented it from scratch.

In any case I completely agree that reporting of science is generally appalling because almost everything in online media is clickbait shite and the people writing articles don't have the faintest clue what they're talking about.

SteveRobinson

The Matrix was released in 1999

octatonic

Science journalism has become a stepping stone for career journalists to eventually get to the stuff they actually care about which is politics.

This means that science literacy amongst science reporters is fairly low.

DLM

Interesting. Turns out a lad from my form at school is now Chief News Ed at New Scientist. We've not spoken since sixth form, but AFAIK he did a non-scientific degree with languages, and worked the science desk at the Daily Fail before moving to NS.

He also sold me two Metallica tab books for cheap when he ditched metal for alternative. \m/

BigLicks67

I imagine the pay for being a science journalist is pretty low for a well qualified science graduate who can make much more money in the private sector, hence the scarcity.

crunchman

I don't think it's just science journalism.  Pretty much all mainstream journalism is pretty dumbed down these days.

ICBM

SteveRobinson said:

The Matrix was released in 1999

Arthur C. Clarke wrote The Lion Of Comarre in 1968...

Roland

It's one of the reasons that this forum is so interesting. You can get real knowledge about a subject without dummed down ideas, subscription seeking subjects, and advertising

stimpsonslostson

ICBM said:

SteveRobinson said:

The Matrix was released in 1999

Arthur C. Clarke wrote The Lion Of Comarre in 1968...

Descartes came up with this:
"Everything I have accepted up to now as being absolutely true and assured, I have learned from or through the senses. But I have sometimes found that these senses played me false it is prudent never to trust entirely those who have once deceived us…Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind."

In the 17th century. 

Heartfeltdawn

Clement the Heretic, a monk from the 9th century:

"It's all bollocks. All of it."

martinw

Science reporting is terrible, agreed.

Add to that anything involving numbers, especially statistics.

'More or Less' on Radio 4 regularly dismantles the week's topical statistics as presented by the media, and the truth behind them is almost always shockingly different to the 'news' articles as presented by lazy journalists.

crunchman

martinw said:

Science reporting is terrible, agreed.

Add to that anything involving numbers, especially statistics.

'More or Less' on Radio 4 regularly dismantles the week's topical statistics as presented by the media, and the truth behind them is almost always shockingly different to the 'news' articles as presented by lazy journalists.

How much is lazy, and how much is lack of understanding?

And how much is deliberate twisting to suit their angle?

Cirrus

Aristotle, 4th century bc: "I think, therefore I am... I think."

Cirrus

ICBM said:

SteveRobinson said:

The Matrix was released in 1999

Arthur C. Clarke wrote The Lion Of Comarre in 1968...

Alas, I have but one wisdom to give. @ToneControl interesting you mention the New Yorker - I keep stumbling upon articles they've published and being really impressed. Have you ever read their 1946 eyewitness account of the Hiroshima bombing?

martinw

crunchman said:

martinw said:

Science reporting is terrible, agreed.

Add to that anything involving numbers, especially statistics.

'More or Less' on Radio 4 regularly dismantles the week's topical statistics as presented by the media, and the truth behind them is almost always shockingly different to the 'news' articles as presented by lazy journalists.

How much is lazy, and how much is lack of understanding?

And how much is deliberate twisting to suit their angle?

I'd say about 60%, because....well, that's what everybody already thinks and if I go against that I'll have to explain and like, literally, I'm so exhausted? yeah?

Bowks

ToneControl said:

Fortunately, some newspapers employ better, more scientifically-aware journalists: http://www.newyorker.com/…/what-are-the-odds-we-are-living-…

The New Yorker gives their journalists months and months to research their articles. 

I'm not sure if many UK papers are the same.

A5D5E5

I don't think it is limited to science.  Whenever the mainstream media ventures into my limited sphere of expertise I am always horrified at how shallow and inaccurate the reporting is.  I've therefore always assumed it would be the same in any technical or complex field.

Winny_Pooh

Good thread. 

ToneControl

Bowks said:

ToneControl said:

Fortunately, some newspapers employ better, more scientifically-aware journalists: http://www.newyorker.com/…/what-are-the-odds-we-are-living-…

The New Yorker gives their journalists months and months to research their articles. 

I'm not sure if many UK papers are the same.

a lot of UK newspaper articles  about  politics appear weeks after they are in Private Eye, and many science articles come several weeks after they are in  New scientist

In this case, you'd need 10 minutes with google to find that Musk  had not materially contributed to the current hypotheses, so I am being harsh with the journalists

ToneControl

martinw said:

Science reporting is terrible, agreed.

Add to that anything involving numbers, especially statistics.

'More or Less' on Radio 4 regularly dismantles the week's topical statistics as presented by the media, and the truth behind them is almost always shockingly different to the 'news' articles as presented by lazy journalists.

agreed

and shite journalists were the cause  for that  fake-lab owner becoming the source of all the  MRSA scare stories:
http://www.badscience.net/2006/05/the-return-of-mrsa-expert-dr-malyszewicz/
http://www.ivampiresbook.com/Other_novels/Bad-science-by-Ben-Goldacre/16.html
Ben Goldacre says:

"Chris wasn’t happy with what I wrote about him, and what was said about him after the story was exposed. We spent some time on the telephone, with him upset and me feeling, in all honesty, quite guilty. He felt that what was happening to him was unfair. He explained that he had never sought to be an expert on MRSA, but after the first story the journalists simply kept coming back, and everything snowballed. He may have made some mistakes, but he only wanted to help.
Chris Malyszewicz died in a car accident after losing control of his vehicle near Northampton shortly after the MRSA stories were exposed. He was heavily in debt."