How The Press Misinterprets Scientific Studies
from the dream-recording-machines dept
There’s an absolutely awesome comic by Jorge Cham of PhDComics (which you should read whether or not you’re a PhD student) about the science news cycle, in which a nuanced scientific result showing a slight correlation is turned into a causal relationship by the press, leading to a flat out frenzy of others in the press who don’t even bother to understand what the original research was about.
Click image to see full version
You can see the original Nature story here, followed by the BBC piece that focuses on dreams, even though that’s not in the actual research. At least it admits that such things are far, far away. Others in the press weren’t so careful. There are plenty of other such reports, but my favorite may be Metro in the UK that claims we’re on the “brink” of recording people’s dreams, despite that not being even close to true. For what it’s worth, it appears some sources, such as Reuters did not parrot the dream recording angle, but plenty did.
It’s a pretty good reminder that, especially when it comes to scientific research, you really shouldn’t believe everything you read.
Oh, and as a random aside, while this story from Moran is entertaining, it does not come close in entertainment value to this other story that Cerf told at a different Moth event about his life as a bank robber. Seriously. No matter what you’re doing today, find ten minutes to watch this next video:
Filed Under: brains, journalism, moran cerf, science, storytelling
Comments on “How The Press Misinterprets Scientific Studies”
MSM policy
“It’s a pretty good reminder that, especially when it comes to scientific research, you really shouldn’t believe everything you read.”
This my policy when reading MSM (which is rare, but sometimes necessary. I assume that what I am reading or watching is:
1 – completely false, or else
2 – some kind of political propaganda (lies mixed with some facts)or,
3 – some kind of commercial/public relations effort (wishful thinking coupled with some lies)or;
4 – a fluff piece or a provocative piece intended solely for getting attention.
In any case I assume that the item:
5 – has not been fact-checked by anybody (since the media believes that there is no difference between truth and lies, what’s the point of wasting time and money checking so-called “facts”?)
This policy has saved me a lot of time and energy, not to mention increased my mental health tenfold. I also save a lot of money by not buying newspapers.
This news-viewing policy is published under a CC license and may be used freely by the discerning public.
Re: MSM policy
MSM = Male Seeking Male?
Finally a solid explanation of why Techdirt’s treatments of third hand stories always seem to come out positive for piracy and against copyright, patents, and trademarks.
Wowser.
Re: Re:
*blinks*
…
…
…
conclusion is erroneous and obviously shill-like, but this one’s actually Logical in how it gets there, and shows basic reading comprehension.
do we have some sort of prize for that? ’cause we totally should.
Re: Re:
If you’re going to complain about techdirt being baised then you should also be complaining that the MPAA/RIAA/BSA only ever publish statements in favor of stricter copyright and agiast piracy.
I won’t hold my breath
Re: Re:
1) critique the writings of others in blog
2) get accused of being biased
3) provide additional facts in support of conclusions
4) get accused of being a shill
5) ?????
6) profit !!!
Re: Re: Re:
5) the anti-techdirt trolls keep fucking that chicken
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So that’s how they breed.
It's not press, it's entertainment
The press doesn’t misinterpret scientific studies. The press, whether it’s traditional print, television, or online, is in the business of making money. That’s their only bottom line. Stories are spun in a way to maximize readers/viewers. It’s entertainment, not news. And just like traditional entertainment, they’re going to appeal to the lowest common denominator to attract the biggest audience.
If you want unvarnished science news, then you need to go to publications such as Nature, which as a rule, require a higher intelligence level to grasp.
Re: It's not press, it's entertainment
It’s not news it’s fark.
Or foobies(not safe for wok)
Re: It's not press, it's entertainment
How would you know?
Re: Re: It's not press, it's entertainment
how would you?
Here's the latest example
Reported everywhere: “Teen Pot Users Risk Long-Term IQ Drop, Study Says”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/teen-pot-use-iq_n_1834392.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/study-pot-use-before-age-18-harms-iq-attention-memory/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456
Typical mistaken, correlation==causation reporting.
Kudos to the BBC for adding the following sentence at the bottom, “She also cautioned that there may be another explanation, such as depression, which could result in lower IQ and cannabis use”, but I can’t find any other site that has realized the issue.
It's not press, it's entertainment
True, the vast majority of “news” is actually entertainment and not to be taken seriously. However, that doesn’t mean that “the press doesn’t misinterpret scientific studies” at all.
The press routinely misinterprets scientific studies, precisely to make them more entertaining.
From my years working in a research lab, I can’t overstate how hated journalism was amongst the scientists. Even the best-intentioned reporters got the stories wrong in ways that totally distorted the meaning of the research. As a result of that experience, I simply do not believe news reports of scientific studies. They are wrong.
You can suss out the truth, though, form knowing that the majority of the time the stories are wrong in one (or both) of two ways: either by leaving out or underplaying important qualifiers such as “might,” “suggests,” etc., or by failing to put percentages into context. “x increases your chance of cancer by 300%!!” is scary, unless you know that your chance of the cancer actually raised from 0.000001% to 0.000003%
That's Show Biz, Folks!
Let’s face it. AC was exactly correct. ALL “news” organizations are in the entertainment business, period. Their sole criterion is how many readers/viewers they can garner from a given story (and thus how many advertising dollars they can collect). Fact, “the truth”, reality, have nothing to do with the issue. It’s really too bad. Like the buffet restaurants in Las Vegas, all “news” organizations now have to be profit centers or they are disbanded. It’s ruining both.
MSM policy
Mainstream media, in case you’re serious.