Whose side are the scientific journalists on?
Should science journalists take sides?
Ed Yong, translated by Irina Lvova, STRF.ru
(made with the author's permission)
Recently, the Royal Institute of Great Britain hosted a discussion on the topic "Should scientific journalists take sides?" organized by the Center for Science and Media. One of the participants in the discussion was Ed Yong, the author of the popular science blog Not exactly rocket science, dedicated to the problems of biology. Yong believes that objectivity in journalism is a myth. We are publishing a translation of his speech.
Reference
Ed Yong lives in London and works in the information department of Cancer Research UK, a large charity organization fighting to reduce mortality among cancer patients. In addition to blogging Not exactly rocket science, dedicated to the problems of biology, Ed writes popular articles in journals such as Nature and NewScientist. A week ago, on October 22, he was awarded the prize of the US National Academy of Sciences in the field of scientific communication– The title of the discussion gives the possibility of different interpretations, but it is obvious to me that scientific journalists should not take the side of any particular scientist, scientific idea or even science itself.
At the same time, it is absolutely necessary that they side with the truth. The problem is that most of the traditional journalism does not achieve even such a simple goal.
The problem arises from the desire to be objective or neutral. This is what Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, aptly calls a "View from Nowhere." You are impartial to the news you report. You don't take sides. You are watching from afar. The problem is that reality doesn't work that way, and sticking to a view from nowhere creates even more problems.
Problem 1: Bad service of journalism. A science journalist recently wrote: "Reporters are messengers, their job is to tell as accurately as possible about what was said, demonstrating an understanding drawn from experience, and not guesses about the correctness of what was said." This is nonsense. If you are not actually giving any analysis, if you are not, in fact, "taking sides", then you are just a messenger, an intermediary, a mouthpiece with ears. If that's how you understand the profession of a journalist, then my RSS reader is a journalist.
I will give a concrete example. The newspaper The Independent published an article about acupuncture, which claims to know the mechanism of pain relief with this procedure. This is good news from the field of neurology, but the article was hopelessly biased when discussing the study and interpreting its results. I made this clear in my blog, but despite everything, the vast majority of colleagues did not pay attention to it. They just gave quotes and views of a major scientist. They even used a quote from a "third party" provided in a press release, not hiding the fact that it came from the wife of one of the authors of the study, who was also the director of the National Center for Alternative and Alternative Medicine.
People could put up with this ten years ago, but not now. Looking out of nowhere just doesn't work, especially in a world where everyone can present their own view. If you do not provide critical analysis or context, then others will provide and scold you for your negligent attitude to the case. Who do you think people will be more willing to read? At a time when journalism is in decline, it would be great if journalists didn't try to be old-fashioned on their own.
Problem 2: laziness. When I was discussing this topic on Twitter, one of my supporters asked: "Doesn't holding a discussion mean that scientific journalists should take sides?" I replied ironically that I would bypass this controversial problem by adding the phrase "scientists have stated..." at the end of everything I said.
How many times have I seen this phrase and its like. They seem so harmless, but these words represent the secret code of the media. They mean that "someone has put forward this crazy idea, and instead of telling you whether there is a sound grain in it or not, I'm just going to convey it verbatim. And I used this clever language trick to shift the responsibility for such a view to the person who said it." In short: "Hey, don't shoot the courier. I'm just passing on this nonsense."
The problem with this approach is that it frees journalists from the responsibility to do what they are meant to do: report the truth. This means that instead of a special study of previous studies, careful consideration of the topic, providing readers with context and comparing the statements they made, you can simply turn to one person, write down what he said, call others, write down what they said, and then consider the case finished.
Such a message in the style of "he said ..., she said ..." shifts the heavy burden of assessing the facts to the reader, who also does not have much time and who probably does not have access to the document, the original source or an expert.
Problem 3: Poor understanding of the audience. Many readers begin to get acquainted with the material at a superficial level, so you need to convey to them thoughts both at this level and dig deeper. Many readers, due to lack of time and, possibly, attention, evaluate what is presented only at the level of headlines. The question mark at the end of the title or the word "maybe" in the middle of the statement does not sufficiently clarify the wording. The expert's quote also brings little benefit – for balance – at the end of the text.
If, for example, you write about how some people claim that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is dangerous, the idea that the reader will take out is that it is dangerous. Objectivity is not a function of every word in your publication, it is primarily influenced by the structure and the decision to publish itself. Which brings me to the fourth problem.
Problem 4: naivety. True impartiality is a myth, it does not exist. Any choice you make is subjective. The most important choice – whether to report it or not – primarily depends on your interests, the interests of your editor or the angle of your publication. If I decide to publish an article about evolutionary psychology and gender roles, it will indicate my bias. The same applies to the situation if I decide not to publish it.
In addition, you have a bias against scientists and how they are going to present the results of their research and what they decided to investigate in the first place. Each word you choose is burdened with a meaning that can dramatically change the meaning and idea of the publication. Every verb and adjective is a vehicle of bias.
Problem 5: Ethics violation. This is where "objectivity" comes to the fore. One day I was talking to a correspondent who wrote a routine report about a rather ingenious study. I asked him why he chose this form of publication, when, undoubtedly, he knew enough to give a more detailed critical review of the study. He replied that he could not find a scientist willing to comment on the controversial issues of the study. It is here that the search for "objectivity" turns from a noble discipline into an occupation that actually leads to a violation of ethics. It's ridiculous to hunt for quotes to tell what you already know. This can lead to people censoring true stories just because they can't find someone willing to tell them.
Problem 6: Misunderstanding of the nature of science. Scientific journalism is fundamentally different from, say, political reporting in that there is objective truth in science. The vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella either leads to autism, or does not (it does not). The world is either created by the Creator, or not created (it is not created). There is a lot of talk about a false balance in scientific reports, and I will not repeat well-known things here, I will just explain my position.
It's not about censoring the views of a minority. I know that great scientific discoveries were made by people with revolutionary thinking, so, no, I do not urge journalists to shut up the future Einstein or Galileo. But if you are discussing the opinion of a minority, do it with caution, with your eyes wide open and indicate in which area a scientific consensus has now been reached. As an example that I like, I will cite Bob Holmes, who wrote a good article for NewScientist magazine about the frankly ridiculous theory put forward by a certain Donald Williamson, that caterpillars are hybrids between insects and creatures that are called primordial. The article had one of those famous headlines in the form of a question that implies a negative answer, but right from the second paragraph it becomes obvious that this theory does not stand up to criticism.
And most importantly, we are not talking about taking the side of specific scientists defending specific ideas, or signing up for Team Science (student camp – STRF.ru ). It would be equally a gross violation of journalistic ethics. When you write about the financing of science, no matter how much you worry about the value of scientific research, you still have to objectively highlight it or evaluate it in comparison with other financial requirements. When you write about politics in science, you can indicate how science will influence political decisions without focusing on other factors.
As I said above, it's about standing up for the truth. You need to be knowledgeable enough to strike a decent blow when revealing the truth and presenting the results of these searches to readers, even if this result strictly adheres to one side of the "dispute". We are talking about the real work of a journalist – analysis, criticism, putting in context, etc. as opposed to the usual reportage.
It's about being aware of your own bias and making it obvious to the reader.
Finally, we are talking about transparency and truth, concepts that are much more important than impartiality or objectivity. After all, the word meaning people indifferent to the truth is "liars", and it should not be synonymous with the word "journalist".
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru02.11.2010