Thursday, November 26, 2009

Friends and Enemies

For the past several years, I've had a growing interest in communicating science. I hold that in a world that makes growing use of technology, scientific literacy is of high importance. Thus, when the IAU created a sub group dedicated to Communicating Astronomy with the Public, I was sure to check it out.

Part of the project features a journal with articles related to the topic of science communication. The newest one just came out.

After reading some of the articles, I must say, the content seems to be thinner than the paper it's printed on. There's a cute article on The Ten Commandments for Presentations. There's nothing in that that's not covered (at length) in a basic public speaking course. Nor is it anything I've not heard from professors assigning presentations.

There's a Guide to Free Desktop Planetarium Software that has a nice list, but doesn't give much information on ease of use or potential functionality for communication. It assumes that the person interested in them will already know what they want to do with it. This is like a journal that's supposed to be about how to build a house for people that may have only used a screwdriver to open their computer case, featuring reviews of miter saws. That's all well and good, but they still won't know how to build a house.

But the article that really bugged me was How Can We Make a Friend Out of an Enemy? How astronomers and journalists can get along better. I think it's the most disingenuous piece of tripe I've ever come across.

The reason? It makes me damn well never want to speak to a journalist again. The entire article is a poor justification on why journalists screw up the science so badly and tries to make the point that if we want to interact with journalists, it should be entirely on their self-serving terms:
The science journalist is supposed to write critically about science; about the process that creates theories and, of course, about the theories themselves. The science journalist, in other words, is not someone who creates acceptance. Just as the political reporter is not the mouthpiece of the government, the business writer is not the mouthpiece of business, the restaurant critic the mouthpiece of food industry, the science writer is not the mouthpiece of the scientific community.

...

“Although scientists often speak of a ‘necessary’ cooperation with journalists, a ‘distance’ between them is essential to my mind. A distance that guarantees the independence of and critical analysis by the media that is necessary if the general public are to be able to form their own opinion.
OK. Fine. You can't simply repeat what scientists tell you. A bit of critical analysis is perfectly fine with us. After all, peer review is our bread and butter. A bit more isn't really a lot of skin off our backs. But if journalists are going to do the reporting, can you at least (1) get the facts right and (2) know what you're talking about enough to make intelligent "criticism"?

The article answers that, "no". Journalists can't do that and they shouldn't be expected to do it.
The mass media do not portray science in an exact manner; they do not even consider this as their task.

...

The frequent complaints of science about ‘incorrect’ or ‘distorted’ reports or about a seemingly ‘wrong’ selection of news therefore miss the mark. It is not possible to achieve an ‘adequate’ media representation of research that will also satisfy the research scientists themselves.
Excuse me?! You want to come use our data, and don't even want to represent it accurately? Why the hell should we talk to you at all?
Can the journalist be an ally for the scientist? No, or at best only to a certain extent, as journalism has to be independent of astronomy, its object of study. But does this mean that the journalist is inevitably an opponent who works in a world that is incompatible with the scientist’s realm? No, not at all, as many excellent reports, films or radio documentaries have been shown that have reached huge audiences and have had a positive impact on the discipline. Labelling journalists as either friend or foe does not fit reality. But just because an unquestioning alliance is impossible, this does not mean we need to renounce a good and trusting relationship between the two professions.
Haven't I heard this defense before?

"We've done some good things, so let's overlook all the absolutely asinine and horrible things we've done wrong."

Sorry. It doesn't work for me. Sure the mass media has done some great documentaries. But look at what else it does: It perpetuates anti-science under the banner of "telling both sides of the story." And this article goes so far as to try to justify that too!
A good journalist can be recognised by the fact that he does not take sides in an issue, even when the cause is good.
And here I thought journalists were supposed to report the facts and interpret them; Not to take fantasy and report on that while misinterpreting reality. That serves no ones interests except the journalists' own pocketbooks.

So what's the justification for that?
The journalist’s duty is to the consumer, the reader or viewer — not to politics, not to the powerful and not to science.
That's all well and good to say, but misrepresenting an entire field that you're relied on for accurate commentary doesn't serve the consumer. Hollowing out a story so to the point its a strawman by simply stating a conclusion without any supporting evidence and tossing in a few sound bites doesn't serve the consumers interest of learning something about science. Inflating absolute nonsense to create controversy, although it may entertain the consumer doesn't serve their interests. At least not if you're a journalist. If you're a comedian, sure. But then you're in the wrong profession.

The article goes on to try to explain the bizarre logic of journalists:
In journalism, only a story that reaches the recipient is a good story.
How do journalists decide what to write for consumers? Good stories. How do you know if it's good? Consumers receive it.

This is circular logic plain and simple.

The article makes it clear that journalists are blind to their own distortions:
It is not about hyping and distorting a topic. It is about developing a feeling for processing it in such a way that people from outside the profession will be interested.
Sadly, journalists, in their "processing" of information must frequently rely on "hyping and distorting a topic." The first half of the sentence says it's not their goal, but the second half justifies doing it anyway.

Additionally, they try to justify another pet peeve of scientists:
Sometimes journalists might prefer to interview the best communicator rather than talk to the best researcher.

...

A scientist, who is not able to convey in a few sentences what his or her research is about, is not suitable for the mass media.
A scientists that's deemed "not suitable for mass media" does some great research. But the journalist can't write a story without their soundbites which the scientist in question can't give. So they go to their pet scientist who may or may not know anything about the research in question and ask him for quotes to mine.

Again, this doesn't serve the interest of the readers. Sure it's "digestible", but they've lost the actual story and in doing so, science journalists have missed the point.

So what's their conclusion from all of this?
Articles, radio documentaries or films could all be improved if astronomers and space scientists were to extend their knowledge about the media so that they can cooperate with them on a basis that is reliable and constructive for both sides.
I think the first part of this is good. Scientists should learn more about media. This article has certainly taught me a lot after all. It's taught me they're a bunch of untrustworthy bastards and we should kick their sorry asses out of the ivory towers.

This article makes it perfectly clear that they're not wanting to "cooperate ... on a basis that is reliable and constructive for both sides." They're wanting us to kowtow to their standards. Yet nowhere in the article does it suggest that journalists should learn the science well enough to know which facts its ok to omit and still have an accurate story. Oh wait.... they don't care if it's accurate. Only if its well received by consumers.

If the author of this paper wants something that's constructive for both sides, then they need to realize they need to realize that the door swings both ways. Scientists need to better understand what makes a story "newsworthy":
any information that journalists publish has to meet certain criteria, which are fundamentally different from those in science: news has to come from a serious source and also be new, which means that it is not previously known. Journalists speak of news factors if a topic affects many people, if it takes place in their spatial vicinity or social proximity, if it is of consequence, if it is dealing with a conflict, if people hold strong opinions on the topic, rouses emotions, is entertaining or has anything to do with celebrities.
Journalists need to understand that many of those things that they just listed as "fundamentally different from ... science" are in science. Many major cities have prestigious universities that are doing great research. That's "in their spatial vicinity". These discoveries are the things that allow us to understand how the universe works which lets us better protect ourselves from disasters (both natural and man made). This is "of consequence". There are legitimate disagreements in science (I'm not talking about, Intelligent Design/Creationism, Plasma Cosmology, Astrology, Anti-Vaxxers, Climate Change denialists, etc....). Journalists don't need to inflate these delusions to make a story that "deals with a conflict." Astronomy lets us explore the vastness of the universe which any astronomer will tell you "rouses emotions."

So this article is really nothing but a long winded, arrogant justification for the failures of science journalists. Not that they see it as failures. They're doing their job. But their job isn't to communicate science. It's to report on science and whether or not they represent it faithfully is less important than keeping consumers happy. In short, scientists need to stop thinking that journalists have any role or intention in communicating science. I suggest not wasting your time with them unless the journalist in question has a good track record of actually forming that constructive basis for both sides.

But what really needs to be done, is to explore new outlets for science communication; To develop a network of reporter-scientists instead of science reporters, who realize that, when the consumer is interested in getting news about science, giving them good science is in their best interest.

(Note: many of the quotes I cited are not from the author of the paper, but are quotes used in the paper. I did not distinguish between them and did not feel a reason to do so given that at times, the author uses so many quotes that she has little material of her own and she allows the quotes to speak for her.

If anyone wants to see the actual author of individual passages, feel free to read the original article.)

27 comments:

Chet Twarog said...

Agreed! We need media that actually "reports" on the actual science. Develop a greater network of reporter-scientists...
It's crazy to have the History Channel do good science programs yet have programs on ghosts, goblins, ET's, UFO's, i.e., pseudosciences as science (or the Discovery Channel). Or, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Anonymous said...

Jon Voisey,

You have now engaged in suppression of information, the same thing that has presently discredited AGW as a science and then you complain about others' conduct?

You've demonstrated disrespect for the Scientific Method, part of which is the free flow of information. You don't have any standing to criticize journalists.

Your lack of respect for the open process of scientific discussion about observations & measurements is a telling sign of your inmaturity.

Jon Voisey said...

Where exactly have I suggested "suppressing information"?

The only thing I've suggested doing away with is misinformation.

Your lack of distinction between reliable, statistically credible sources and hollowed out nonsense to support fairy tales is a telling sign of your irrationality.

Anonymous said...

Actions speak louder than words.

And suppression is what you have recently engaged in at your Universe Today article.

You rely on statistics? As we have seen recently with the manipulation of statistics in climate change, reliance on stastics is problematic.

Correct models of astrophysical processes often rely on qualitative understanding of the process first with confirmation by observation & measurement.

As to your ad hominem characterization, considering the bevity of the offending comment, your ad hominem response gives further proof for your inability to handle dissenting views in a mature fashion.

Jon Voisey said...

Ah. Now I know who this Anon is. He's the local idiot at UT who spams crap about the "electric universe" model. I've been deleting your posts because it's strictly against the posting policy in that it's advocating your own hypothesizes.

Meanwhile, the model makes no predictions that are any better than a fortune cookie. Most of its claims have been demolished. It's pseudoscience and belongs in the rubbish bin. Your claims of "suppression" are just as ignorant as those from the ID/Creationism camp. I suggest heading over to this blog which directly addresses many of the claims of the Electric Universe model.

As far as meddling with statistics and the climate change, as I said before, I'm still waiting to see anything that's particular damning and not just a bunch of idiots unfamiliar with the scientific process whining about what they don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Continuing in your ad hominem fashion, I see, so much for maturity. I suppose you would handle the situation the same way in front of the children you teach at school?

Obviously, it is not my personal theory, as the poster presentation was presented at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 33rd International Conference on Plasma Sciences (ICOPS)2006.

So much for your intellectual honesty, but that often comes with maturity.

As for the 'Electric Comet' hypothesis, itself, the observations & measurements of comets are more consistent with the 'Electric Comet' hypothesis than with the conventional "dirty snowball" as your own post, Comets Posing as Asteroids (or is it the other way around?) suggests.

Grow up, your actions and statements provide a poor example for your students.

Jon Voisey said...

If we're looking for ad homs, you were using them in your very first post here. You shouldn't be surprised when you're met in kind.

And no, the electric comet is not consistent with the observations. The only consistencies come from being uselessly vague. Hell, that poster isn't even consistent with itself.

Oh, and if someone is a bunch of pseudoscientific bunk, I would absolutely call it such in front of my students. That's not immature. That's good pedagogy.

Anonymous said...

Complaining about journalistic standards and then turning around and deleting a document and discussion is immature.

Please, point out one item in the 'Electric Comet' poster presentation that is inconsistent with observed comet behavior or where the poster presentation is inconsistent with itself.

Debate and disagreement is part of the Scientific Method.

Deleting documents and discussion because you don't agree with them is not part of the scientific Method, nor is it part of good journalism.

Jon Voisey said...

point out one item in the 'Electric Comet' poster presentation that is inconsistent with observed comet behavior

The model does not predict the double tails observed by comets. Furthermore, it does not account for why the tail is oriented with the orbit. It uses worthlessly vague terminology like predicting features would be "sharp". It does not account for the ice directly observed from spectra. Oh, and there's still been absolutely ZERO evidence for the magical electric currents that fly around the universe that are needed to make the whole thing work.

or where the poster presentation is inconsistent with itself.

The posted "predicted" there would be no water detected from the Deep Impact mission then goes on to quote the report saying water was found (although not as much as anticipated).

I didn't delete your comments because I "disagree" with them. It's not personal. I deleted them because they're thoroughly hollow. They're no more substantial than any other pseudoscience. As such, they don't deserve respect from scientists and aren't worth reporting on from the standpoint of (good) journalism.

But you can feel free to keep on hoping that the mass media machine will continue to look for such pathetic "controversies" to "report" on.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Anonymous:

Quote:
As for the 'Electric Comet' hypothesis, itself, the observations & measurements of comets are more consistent with the 'Electric Comet' hypothesis...


Really? Where? There's certainly nothing in this poster you reference which is even close to the standards of professional astronomers.

Using the models provided by Electric Universe (EU) advocates, I've tried to generate predictions that can be compared to observations and flying missions. Here's some of the results of that effort:

The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model,
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I,
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II,
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III
Electric Cosmos: Predictions
Many of these results have serious implications for astronauts traveling to the Moon, exposed to the solar wind.

When confronted with these contradictions in their models and claims, the EU advocates provided nothing but excuses, cowering behind claims of unnamed 'nonlinearities' without even demonstrating that these 'nonlinearities' could generate numbers even close to what we actually measure.

Quote:
Debate and disagreement is part of the Scientific Method.

Only when they are actually playing by the same rules.

And before you respond to this, you might want to think of something more substantial than the garbage from the EU 'pros':
More Comments on "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited"
Whines of the Electric Universe...

Anonymous said...

Hi,
you stated the article would deny that 'can you at least (1) get the facts right and (2) know what you're talking about enough to make intelligent "criticism"?"' I read it carefully, but this article does not say that an astronomer has to "accept" factual mistakes (made by the journalist). And it does also not say that any journalist should criticise astronomy, even if he os she has no idea of astronomy. - Please could you give us the quote for your interpretation/statement?

Jon Voisey said...

Anon,

I'm not sure what you mean that astronomers have to "accept" factual mistakes. It's not like we can deny the reality that journalists print things that are outright wrong. We don't have to "accept" that it changes our work, but we do have to "accept" that it changes the public view of science. And that's the problem I have. Because when the public starts tossing out good science, we get things like the anti-vax movement. People die.

This article itself doesn't highlight the distortions of the facts science journalists often commit. The examples of that can be found splattered across all sorts of science blogs. Here's a couple examples I recall from recently: 1, 2.

Again, this article doesn't outright state that science journalists should intentionally make mistakes, but it does try to brazenly excuse them and tell scientists that it's not important because getting their facts straight isn't as important as the consumer being happy and thinking they understood something. Quotes supporting that are in my post.

As far as journalists being critics of astronomy, I've provided quotes supporting that from the article too. Look at the first sentence of my first quote. "The science journalist is supposed to write critically about science".

Anonymous said...

Salut Jon,
I don't understand why you are so upset. Of course it is not nice if a journalist writes "star" instead of "planet" but when you want to be part of the media, I think you have to adjust to their rules. It's their game.

Salutations,
René

Anonymous said...

pardon, Jon, I think I didn't express myself clearly: With "be part of the media" I meant: if you want your research to be covered by the media.

And there's a little quote by BBC correspondent Pallab Gosh for you. He wrote: "Trying to change the media is like a mosquito trying to stop an express train. You're not going to change it nor should you really want to."

René

Jon Voisey said...

The point is that scientists want their work popularized. Their work. Not some bastardization thereof. They want it accurately represented.

It's the same situation of a politician giving a speech. The media should accurately reflect what was said. If the politician says they're wanting to introduce universal health care and then the reporters report that as wanting to promote socialism, they've crossed over the line of accurate reporting. There's no two ways about it. It's wrong, factually and morally.

The point of this article is that it shouldn't matter because, as you put it, trying to change it is like trying to stop an express train. That's not a reason, that's an excuse. Might does not make right.

If science journalists can't actually report fairly and accurately as this article makes it clear they can't (and don't care) then scientists should not "want their research covered by the media." Rather, new media should be developed that stress accuracy over factually skewed or hollow "reporting".

Anonymous said...

mmh, Jon, I think - this is at least the situation in France -, that it is not just "your" research as it is paid by the public (ok, not in all cases, but in most). So we all have the duty to share our knowledge with the public in a way that is different from "teaching the dumb people about our wisdom". I would rather say that it is the citizen's research, and you or me or any other researchers got the job to do the experiments or the like.

In one point I really have to agree with the article: The media do not have to reflect accurately what is said by a politician or by a researcher. I buy my newspaper, because what Monsieur Sarkozy says it put in a context the citizen can understand. If he want's the citizens to belive that, for example, La Hague is no problem - what use would it be, if the journalist would just write the speech word by word? I want to journalist to explain me how dangerous La Hague is, I want to read about other opinions about this subject (opinions the journalist collected). So I can find my own point of view. This is why I buy my newspaper, everything else would be a PR campaign. - Basically I think it is exactly the same with the sciences. Of course, I repeat this voluntarily, "planet" instea of "star" is not ok. But this is something the article you are so upset about does not say at all.

Salut!
René

Anonymous said...

again, I expressed myself not clearly enouth (sorry, not native speaker): When i said "The media do not have to reflect accurately" - of course any word should be correct. I mean "accurate" in the sense of a "1:1" translation: Every word is repeated, every aspect covered etc.

Excuse-moi,
René

Jon Voisey said...

Rene,

I'm fine with having to condense things. I'm even fine with simplifying things to make them understandable. What I'm against is journalists changing the meaning in doing so. You can keep accuracy while doing these things.

There's no way things can be a 1:1 translation. If that were the case, then people might as well just go straight to the primary source. So I understand that some sacrifices need to be made, but there are so many cases of where the science is completely mangled or destroyed and this is used as an excuse. That's not acceptable.

Condensing/simplifying = ok.
Distorting/misreporting = wrong.

The article attempts to justify the latter. That's my problem.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jon,
I agress with you that distortion is not ok. I do not agree with you that the article tries to justify this. To be honest I find this text quite balanced. But well, we don't have to share this.

René

Jon Voisey said...

I don't think you read carefully enough then. Let me repost some quotes:

"The mass media do not portray science in an exact manner;"

"The frequent complaints of science about ‘incorrect’ or ‘distorted’ reports or about a seemingly ‘wrong’ selection of news therefore miss the mark."

The first quote says they do not portray the science accurately. That is to say, it's inaccurate. That's distortion.

The second blithely ignores the problems in doing this by saying it "miss[es] the mark" as if it's not important. The article goes on to say that scientists should have to meet on the media's terms, but the media apparently doesn't need to satisfy the scientists whose work they're reporting on!

It's not the "constructive partnership" the author prattles on about. The media gets to misportray science all they want by this partnership so long as it keeps their consumers happy and thinking they're learning something.

Anonymous said...

Well Jon,
I think you mistook the scientific idea of accuracy with the journalistic one. Another remark: Have you read about the idea of the mass media's function of "transforming" science? I think the text is meant that way. It is no justification of the journalist's mistakes.

The 2nd quote you mention is taken from Peter Weingart, one of the most renowned media researchers (we learned about him in a science communication course in Lille, France). Do you really want to state that he is wrong, all his colleagues who write more or less the same, are wrong, too, but you are right? I think you're starting to attack a whole group of science communication researchers.

I appreciate your effort about this topic. But somehow I think you're describing rather your idea how journalism should be instead of knowing or respecting the way it is.

René

Jon Voisey said...

Rene, you're equivocating. Accuracy is accuracy. It doesn't matter if we're talking science or if we're talking journalism. Changing the definition is dishonest, but as this article and you make clear, journalism has its own set of warped rules.

Similarly, you apply a second logical fallacy: an ad populum argument. Just because Weingart and his colleagues think it's ok to distort things because journalists have their own rules doesn't mean it is acceptable.

So yes. I am describing how journalism should be. Because it's obviously flawed when distortions aren't frowned upon, but expected for the sake of easy "understanding". I put understanding in quotes because when your information is distorted, you're not really understanding in, now are you?

Jon Voisey said...

Oh. And I don't trust too much in peoples "opinions". After all, there's a lot of people who believe very stupid things. Take the whole Creationism movement for example. Or the anti-vaccination crowd. Or the moon hoax theorists....

An opinion is worthless unless it can be backed up with worthwhile evidence and popular media doesn't allow for that. Rather, they publish any opinion as if it were credible.

I'm not sure how much you're familiar with all of this since much of this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Creationim especially.

Carlie said...

Hi! Just came over from ERV. The part that had me gobsmacked was this: "A scientist, who is not able to convey in a few sentences what his or her research is about, is not suitable for the mass media."

...which is why we have science journalists to translate what they say for the mass media, no? First the author says for scientists to expect that their words get changed around to better fit the consumer and the goals of the paper, and then says that scientists who don't provide quote-worthy comments won't be interviewed and shouldn't complain about it. Either the science journalist's job is to find the best science and report well on it, or to find the scientists who already communicate well and parrot what they say. It can't be both.

MetzO'Magic said...

Jon, hi,

I came here via another commenter on the Bad Astronomy site. Very good article. Shame to see the comments trashed by the 'Anonymous' troll. But as you deduced, he is a crackpot with his own agenda: the thoroughly debunked electric universe.

Anyway... agree that the tendency by the mass media to 'show the controversy' (when there actually isn't any!) has completely destroyed science journalism. In fact, it has only served to make the public anti-science over the years. If the science 'journalists' scrape up a counter-argument (from some vocal quack) to *every* new or existing scientific theory, then over time it creeps into the collective psyche that every scientific theory, no matter how close to approaching fact it is, is 'only a theory' - which to the man on the street means something like, at best, a 50/50 proposition!

And then, on the other side of the coin, they over-hype discoveries when it is not possible or worthwhile to manufacture some controversy. A scientist might be onto something that is 'promising', but probably isn't commercially feasible for another 20 years. The journalists make it appear as if the thing will be available on the street next week. And when that doesn't materialise... science is on the back foot yet again.

Jon Voisey said...

Oh. And I don't trust too much in peoples "opinions". After all, there's a lot of people who believe very stupid things. Take the whole Creationism movement for example. Or the anti-vaccination crowd. Or the moon hoax theorists....

An opinion is worthless unless it can be backed up with worthwhile evidence and popular media doesn't allow for that. Rather, they publish any opinion as if it were credible.

I'm not sure how much you're familiar with all of this since much of this is a uniquely American phenomenon. Creationim especially.

Jon Voisey said...

point out one item in the 'Electric Comet' poster presentation that is inconsistent with observed comet behavior

The model does not predict the double tails observed by comets. Furthermore, it does not account for why the tail is oriented with the orbit. It uses worthlessly vague terminology like predicting features would be "sharp". It does not account for the ice directly observed from spectra. Oh, and there's still been absolutely ZERO evidence for the magical electric currents that fly around the universe that are needed to make the whole thing work.

or where the poster presentation is inconsistent with itself.

The posted "predicted" there would be no water detected from the Deep Impact mission then goes on to quote the report saying water was found (although not as much as anticipated).

I didn't delete your comments because I "disagree" with them. It's not personal. I deleted them because they're thoroughly hollow. They're no more substantial than any other pseudoscience. As such, they don't deserve respect from scientists and aren't worth reporting on from the standpoint of (good) journalism.

But you can feel free to keep on hoping that the mass media machine will continue to look for such pathetic "controversies" to "report" on.