A great example of how media coverage lets us down in the news last week.
On April 1, NZ media pushed hard a story about research showing that mobile phones increase the cancer risk:
The link between mobile phones and brain tumours should “no longer be regarded as a myth” after research suggests high cellphone use could double the risk of brain cancer.
More science on April 4, a Reuters wire that was trumpeted through the NZ media, this time research showing that we don’t actually need to drink all that water:
There is no clear-cut scientific rationale for the average healthy individual to drink a lot of water – and it may be downright harmful – according to two kidney experts.
Both of these entries extensively quote the researchers involved. The cellphone one goes on to quote some other people for extra perspective. Yet these two science stories are not like each other.
The two articles both mention where these scientific reports were published. The water article was published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. The cellphone article was published on “the website brain-surgery.us”. They don’t go any further and acknowledge that their might be a difference between these two venues of publication. Anyone who takes the trouble to click through the links above, however, can instantly see that the water study was published in peer-reviewed scientific journal of long standing, and the cellphone study was published on the author’s personal website without review by anyone at all.
A half-second’s further review of the cellphone study should set off serious alarm bells for anyone with any inkling about communication (like, say, a journalist): it’s written with an abundance of cheap visual rhetoric, the stock-in-trade of the internet hysteric: bolded and colour-coded phrases, massively overlong paragraphs, paranthetical exclamation marks (!) and even SCARE CAPITALS.
These differences seem massive and obvious to me, but this crucial context is completely invisible in the way these stories were reported. This failing becomes shameful when you consider that the subjects of these stories are of significant public interest and likely to inspire behaviour change from some of the audience.
It’s a sad state of affairs, really. I find it hard to blame the journo in the byline of the cellphone scare story, Greer McDonald – a quick google shows she is fresh out of journalism school. It’s editorial that bears the burden of shame here.
And since it’s unrealistic to expect this to change any time soon, if ever: in this age of Google, it’s up to the reader to be their own factchecker. Get into the habit.
Re: not blaming the journo – don’t you find it concerning that journalism school is producing graduates who think it’s good policy to crib health-related news stories from some guy’s personal website?
Well, yeah it is concerning – but it wasn’t her idea. It seems obvious that a story came over the wire, Reuters or AP one assumes. Google shows similar stories all over the world. The local journo gets a byline in this case for going to some local people for quotes – not a scientist, of course, but a dude from Vodafone and a dude from the Cancer Society.
Of course I’d like journalism school to devote some energy to reporting on science, but more realistically that kind of learning has to take place on the job.
I like the fact that Dr Vini G. Khurana’s website is a vehicle for the sale of his self-illustrated book.
Morgue: I was more thinking of devoting some energy to learning how to research, full stop.
Yeah frequently gets me quite grumpy. The water one has been something I’ve been ranting about for years. The recent NZ press about Dave Lamberts evolution of tuatara work was interesting, in its brevity. And although not wrong, certainly missing most of the context. I think there is certainly opportunity for news organisations to hire scientists to write for them – lillian ang on TV3 seems to be reasonably good at actually finding some relevance and factual basis to her stories.
B (rambling, rants, and reading)
Pearce: well, yeah. Can’t argue with that.
Bruce: there are a couple of people who seem to do good work on the science stories, but they are in the minority for sure.
The cellphone “study” just got referenced on 60 Minutes. Gah!