Poor UK journalism on science topics

ToneControl

stimpsonslostson said:

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. 

I know we can go back  in time and  find other hypotheses that support a newer one.
In this case I don't see that Elon Musk came up with anything new

Grunfeld

A couple of days ago there was potentially a really interesting bit of science reporting on BBC Radio 4's "Today" program.
It was all about genetics and stuff... or maybe it was astronomy... or it could've been dinosaurs for all I know.
The problem was the scientist they had talking....

He sounded exactly like Bert from the Muppets.
I couldn't focus on the science bit, I just kept expecting him to say, "Hey Ernie..."

UnclePsychosis

A few years ago one of the tabloids ran a piece saying that a new study had proven that having pets increased your children's chances of getting asthma. Shortly afterwards a different paper ran a piece saying that a new study had proven that having pets didn't have any bearing on whether or not kids would get asthma. 

They were both based on the same press release about the same study. 

Journalists (and the general public) are spectacularly bad at statistics and unfortunately the normal scientific answer of "well, its complicated..." does not tend to lend itself to modern journalistic style where things need to be dumbed down (the average reading age of something like The Sun is about 12, if I recall correctly). 

It also doesn't help that when scientists try and get involved themselves and try to communicate the results and consequences of their work themselves they often get told off for "politicising" science and told to sit down, shut up, and leave the debate to politicians (or whoever). 

mart

Everything I read in newspapers, about subjects that I actually know something about, confirms that the journalists know very little. And that's based in broadsheets, since I can never usually make it past page 3 of the tabloids.

And, yes, they're not trying to report facts, they're trying to sell papers, and exciting untruths sell more than facts.

New Scientist is much more interesting. I was involved with an article published there a couple of years back - I had translated the article and was the go-between for the author and NS. They were incredibly good at editing the article, analysing the content, spotting weaknesses in the arguments, and making the whole thing a much better article - clearer and more precise.

And, of course, the whole thing was being turned round in double-quick time to meet the print deadline. 

I know some of the science in NS is not always presented as accurately as it could be, but they are leagues above the the dailies.

ToneControl

UnclePsychosis said:

A few years ago one of the tabloids ran a piece saying that a new study had proven that having pets increased your children's chances of getting asthma. Shortly afterwards a different paper ran a piece saying that a new study had proven that having pets didn't have any bearing on whether or not kids would get asthma. 

They were both based on the same press release about the same study. 

Journalists (and the general public) are spectacularly bad at statistics and unfortunately the normal scientific answer of "well, its complicated..." does not tend to lend itself to modern journalistic style where things need to be dumbed down (the average reading age of something like The Sun is about 12, if I recall correctly). 

It also doesn't help that when scientists try and get involved themselves and try to communicate the results and consequences of their work themselves they often get told off for "politicising" science and told to sit down, shut up, and leave the debate to politicians (or whoever). 

all true

Less of an issue, but unfortunately, in  addition,  many scientists have an inadequate understanding of statistics -  especially life sciences in my experience.  I wish  academics would collaborate a bit more, since I've seen  plenty of commendable  research spoiled by poor  understanding of maths

I'll make an assumption that all academic humanities researchers are likely to struggle with  statistics when needed, but I'd hope they'd be more likely to seek assistance.

DLM

mart said:
I had translated the article

@mart, what combos do you do? I'm strictly DE>EN, and am more than happy to defer to an expert with technical knowledge in the respective field.

mart

DLM said:

mart said:
I had translated the article

@mart, what combos do you do? I'm strictly DE>EN, and am more than happy to defer to an expert with technical knowledge in the respective field.

I've only done French to English, and only as an occasional side-line, in specialist work where my technical knowledge overcomes my linguistic shortcomings.

TheBlueWolf

I generally don't trust the media as most seem to go for hype, focus on a tenuous angle and/or deliver the fast food equivalent of news. 

bbill335

This site might be of interest - http://www.senseaboutscience.org/

thecolourbox

I don't trust journalists to write correctly about a stolen flower from a park let alone anything difficult

Chalky

Science is irrelevant to the vast majority of people so they won't read it unless it is 'made interesting'. It's not always the journalist's fault that it is over-simplified or misleading.

Evilmags

Science and "very speculative philosophy" are not quite the same thing....

DLM

@mart That makes loads of sense for really specialist subjects.

thecolourbox

Chalky said:

Science is irrelevant to the vast majority of people so they won't read it unless it is 'made interesting'. It's not always the journalist's fault that it is over-simplified or misleading.

So it's not journalist's fault that people have got used to sloppy over simplified journalism?

Axe_meister

It'a amazing how little people know how science effects their lives.
A mobile phone for instance relies on quantum mechanics (transistors) and General relativity for correction of GPS errors.
Basic chemistry for batteries. Optometry for the the Camera, Newtons laws of motion for the motion sensors.

lloyd

Axe_meister said:

It'a amazing how little people know how science effects their lives.
A mobile phone for instance relies on quantum mechanics (transistors) and General relativity for correction of GPS errors.
Basic chemistry for batteries. Optometry for the the Camera, Newtons laws of motion for the motion sensors.

I'm not sure that's true, I think most people are aware there's some pretty scientific shit going on in the phones we use, the computers and whatnot, it's just that most of us have fuck all idea how they work or anything about them.

Why or how would we know unless you're in the industry or have an interest in that kind of thing?

hungrymark

Yes, the standards in mainstream media are terrible. There was an article in the news last week reporting that they'd made 'embryos without the need for female eggs'. Needless to say, they hadn't when I looked into it. I mean, it was still interesting, just not what the headline said it was. 

thecolourbox

Axe_meister said:

It'a amazing how little people know how science effects their lives.
A mobile phone for instance relies on quantum mechanics (transistors) and General relativity for correction of GPS errors.
Basic chemistry for batteries. Optometry for the the Camera, Newtons laws of motion for the motion sensors.

But unless you're interested in that, or have a penchant for remembering and reciting things back, you don't need to now what's in it really do you? Same way you don't need to know the genetic back story of that tin of tuna you had a few weeks ago in order to eat it