Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Insights Fake News and Science Reporting - Comments

  1. Dec 13, 2016 #1

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 13, 2016 #2

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You're absolutely right, that people should not be satisfied with a news story about some event without checking into sources. However, it's often the case that confusion about what happened is actually cleared up in the original article itself, and people come away with a false impression just because they only read the headline.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
  4. Dec 13, 2016 #3
    Such an important topic to discuss! It will be a great challenge going forward!
     
  5. Dec 13, 2016 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    The best part of it is your example:
    (Source: http://www.ipp.mpg.de/w7x - Homepage of the Max-Planck institute in Greifswald, which operates
    Wendelstein 7-X, including an email address for questions.)

    This statement includes the fact, that the device isn't supposed to be a prototype of a functioning nuclear reactor, rather a scientific tool to investigate the possibility of a stellarator compared to (the pulsed operation of) a tokamak.
     
  6. Dec 13, 2016 #5
    I'm willing to bet extremely few people outside the relevant specialty give any time to investigating sources.

    People don't have time to fully read anything these days. Marketers know this extremely well and craft catchy and sometimes down right deceiving headlines. It's the problem with news information being a business. Social media has made it worse.
     
  7. Dec 13, 2016 #6

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yeah, there is a lot of intentionally misleading headlines out there. But even when the headline is not intentionally misleading, the reader can get the wrong impression if he only reads the headline (or the headline and the opening paragraph).
     
  8. Dec 13, 2016 #7

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I have read a quotation posted by my nephew on the US election, determined to influence opinions. As I've looked up the sources of that article, I've found the first seven sources have been a self-quotation of formerly posted statements on the same website and the eighth has been a FOX news report ...
    It's not that difficult nowadays to find the sources.

    I liked this a lot:
     
  9. Dec 13, 2016 #8

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This also happens a lot in biology. For example, Science has a nice news story covering how one small developmental biology paper got overblown by the media, with headlines that were completely wrong:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...eate-tabloid-science-headline-five-easy-steps

    The path from research paper to press release to news story is essentially a bad game of telephone that distorts scientific findings at each step.

    Also, obligatory XKCD reference:
    wikipedian_protester.png
    https://xkcd.com/285/
     
  10. Dec 13, 2016 #9

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My field, Biology, is the worst for 'post-truth' news claims using weak references to journal articles. Nutrition claims and medical breakthroughs constitute an almost daily blitz of poorly informed hype and or blatant advertising claims.

    I feel the fake news thing overlaps largely into the 'post-truth' thing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics
    - with the exception that a lot of fake news is self-serving from the writers point of view.

    In the case of bad science reporting, it can well be a writer trying to keep a job by generating interest in his/her column, for example. So called 'slant' on a topic. Call it fake news, post-truth, or 'tribal science' (e.g., anti-vaxxers) . Or maybe religion as @mfb feels this stuff sometimes amounts to....

    Name your poison.

    Edit oops @Ygggdrasil beat me to it. And did a better job.
     
  11. Dec 13, 2016 #10
    You are not the average reader :)
     
  12. Dec 13, 2016 #11

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I've never before read so much "quotes" of questionable content than in this year's campaigns. Even if I didn't search for their origin doesn't mean I believed them. Mostly I took it as an entertainment.
    IMO weak journalism is the real danger to our modern democracies. I really believe that a democracy depends on educated voters. We've experienced where a "public vote" can get us to. It frightens me to see former confidential magazines deteriorate and mass media making opinions. I'm not sure whether it really got worse the recent two decades or whether I'm simply complaining by "the good old times".

    The more I appreciate the lonesome callers for references on PF, although I sometimes think, a negative answer would have been shorter. At least this habit shows future generations of scientists how to do it properly. Too many faked reports have already damaged science: copied thesis, the famous autism-MMR link and probably many more.
     
  13. Dec 13, 2016 #12

    Choppy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    An excellent article ZapperZ!
     
  14. Dec 13, 2016 #13
    This needs to be trending all over the internet. And mandatory literature for any high school student say older than 14.

    One thing I wonder is how to remedy especially the second part of
    We all know media outlets won't start hiring (possibly on a freelance basis) professionals to create articles suitable for the general public. Simply because its easier to use their full time "journalists" to create some flashy content.
     
  15. Dec 13, 2016 #14
    Share with your friends and social media links below the article content :)
     
  16. Dec 13, 2016 #15

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    A nice article!

    I'm not sure if Wendelstein was the best example:
    That is true: It is a research reactor designed to test the plasma. It had test plasmas already. Now they are installing a better divertor, with the aim to increase the plasma pressure and pulse duration afterwards. At no point do the articles claim that the reactor would have had fusion reactions or other similar wrong things. Calling Wendelstein 7-X a "fusion reactor" is misleading, but that is done by the scientific community as well.

    I have seen far worse news on similar websites.

    Journalism adapts to whatever the target audience wants to read. If many people prefer fake/misleading news over actual news (for whatever reason: sounds better, fits better to their world view, ...), then they get fake/misleading news.
     
  17. Dec 13, 2016 #16
    I'd make the case for teaching basic numeracy here, and by that I mean statistics, and not even the hard stuff.

    What I mean is, even if you are not versed in a particular subject, it is very easy to see when a study is done badly if you know the basics of sample size, various kinds of bias, correlation does not imply causation, etc. Some of the best insights I got about critical reading were probability and statistics books written for a lay audience.

    --Dave K
     
  18. Dec 13, 2016 #17

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    Sounds a bit like the hen-egg-paradox. I seriously doubt, that worse journalism leads to better orders.
    Spiegel_stern_Langzeit-1.jpg

    Source: http://meedia.de/2016/02/12/histori...trend-rekorde-mit-kennedy-und-dem-irak-krieg/

    And it doesn't look better for the NYT:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/b...ng-drop-though-digital-results-grew.html?_r=0
     
  19. Dec 13, 2016 #18

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    What does that plot show, apart from the general decline of printed newspapers and some different historic development of those two particular newspapers?

    I don't say "worse journalism => more copies sold". I say "whatever sells more copies (with reasonable effort), gets done." There is no particular reason why the optimum should be at the best quality. Consider the BILD: They sell a huge amount of newspapers, and they are well-known for poor journalism - even by those buying it.
     
  20. Dec 13, 2016 #19

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    At least for one of the magazines I can tell that quality deteriorated in the last decade. So less quality doesn't imply better order figures. Thus it is at least questionable, that people like to read bad journalism.
     
  21. Dec 13, 2016 #20

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Circulation goes down for all newspapers. This is a general trend, in the last years mainly due to the internet. To start a comparison, you would have to normalize the copies sold by the overall number of newspapers sold. But even then there are many things that can influence the success of a newspaper, reducing that to a single number does not work.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Fake News and Science Reporting - Comments
  1. Science News (Replies: 1)

  2. Science News (Replies: 7)

Loading...