Comments on: How to avoid “he-said-she-said” science journalism

By: Media “Objectivity” « We Beasties

Media “Objectivity” « We Beasties — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:28:42 +0000

[...] is not about doing it all yourself without seeking outside opinions. The critical thing is that an outside opinion doesn’t need to be an opposing one. If you call up other scientists to comment on a study, and they all think it’s good, then [...]

By: Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine play the short embargo game « Embargo Watch

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:02:50 +0000

[...] journal — and focus on your journal’s study. They make it quite difficult to find outside sources who can take the time to review a study [...]

By: Ivan Oransky

Ivan Oransky — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:54:34 +0000

Many thanks for all of the additional responses. Glad this sparked a discussion.
@IanH: Apologies for only responding now to your request. By all means, please quote from the post, very flattering.

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:41:23 +0000

No need to feel embarrassed Abel, I'm coming in to this much, much later! Here, let me take your embarrassment from you... @7&8: If the paper has already been around, I'd just ask as Ed and Ivan suggested. Scientists do this too, often simply because their institution doesn't have a subscription to the particular journal in question. If you're trying report something that's "brand new", embargoes can effectively hide the article until after others have their shot at it. (Ed's more recent post on the post-embargo delay is part of the trouble here, but there's also that fact that not everyone has access to embargoes even if you are trying to write for print, etc.) I agree it's important to seek the right kind of alternative views, ones that favour discussion of the substance of the work, not classic political-style debate. I think the idea of trying to look outside of the paper is a good one, even if it take more time, skill and some background. There is a tendency to, even if subconsciously, favour citing previous research that supports the viewpoint put forward by the researcher and casting a wider net can avoid that. (In an ideal world this wouldn't happen, but we live in a real world...) I've written a little about related issues (as far too many people do!), particularly "Media thought: ask what is known, not the experts opinion" ( http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2009/12/31/media-thought-ask-what-is-known-not-the-expert's-opinion/ ) and "Science journalism—critical analysis not debate" ( http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2009/10/23/science-journalism—critical-analysis-not-debate/ )

By: IanH

IanH — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:04:18 +0000

Thank you for your considered article (and to Ed for hosting it). I find it very frustrating to see many scientific issues portrayed as two opposing sides, each of equal weight, when there is so often a scientific consensus. (“Teach the controversy”, anyone?)
In the UK at the moment you can currently see some very clear – I won’t say good – examples of this, with responses to a recent summary showing the lack of effect for homeopathy (above placebo, of course). Adherents often quote the number of studies they say support it, and there’s so rarely the opportunity to point out the low number and quality of these compared to those showing a lack of effect.
Would it be okay to quote parts of your post in a worksheet I’m working on? I’m producing an activity for my students where they research online a science subject for debate and this could be a useful starting point…

By: Oran Kelley

Oran Kelley — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:00:51 +0000

Good post that really ought to be taught.
One thing I thought I might add is that you always have to work hard to expand your list of trusted outside sources and talk to them not just to put in your articles, but also to just give you better background on the issues. A nice big rolodex is a reporter’s friend–not everyone in it will rise to the status of your Reichman, but it’s always good to have a rich candidate pool.
For writers on deadline, this can be very time-consuming, but it pays off.

By: Abel Pharmboy

Abel Pharmboy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:31:15 +0000

Ivan, I’m embarrassed to get to this so late but I really love the distinction you make about other viewpoints vs. false balance.
Your Reuters article on the Circulation paper is a superb example and I encourage students here to read it (link. Yes, not everyone knows Hal Koenig but I argue that it’s also important to think critically about an “opposing viewpoint.” Koenig has done an incredible job in studying religiosity and health but he gets criticized sometimes (ok, by some at ScienceBlogs) for being funded by The Templeton Foundation, thereby causing any of his opinions to be thrown out with the bathwater.
You knew how to include his caveats that reflected true limitations of the study design and alternative conclusions because they are scientifically valid. Taking into account the confounding variables of racial and ethnic groups, access to health care, etc. are real issues in interpreting the findings and he put them forth because he is a scientist, not a dogmatic religious zealot. Other less seasoned reporters might have sought a different religiosity scholar and quoted their objections without considering whether their scientifically validity.
This is my long way of saying that selecting reliable sources is certainly important and the list grows the longer you are in this business. But even early career journalists should have already cultivated a good enough bullshit detector to know when the opposing viewpoint is not founded in reason.
A great discussion – thank you for your perspective and many thanks to Ed for guest hosting you.

By: southlakesmom

southlakesmom — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:26:44 +0000

In case any of the followers of this thread are interested, today (Friday) on Science Friday of National Public Radio, they were in San Diego at the meeting of the Nat Assn for the Advancement of Science talking about this very thing — and also had some good points and advice. The link to the page is http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201002191
One difficulty for non-scientists in trying to understand and embrace new ideas and theories is that some in the scientific community speak with arrogance, and some speak with no communication skills. Both of these can be very off-putting and/or confusing to people who are genuinely interested in the work (read: potential investors!).
In the absence of good communicators, it falls to journalists to fill in the blanks, and that’s not always an easy fit with time pressures most journalists live by these days.
The folks today on NPR really did a good job of addressing this today.

By: Ivan Oransky

Ivan Oransky — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:00:50 +0000

Many thanks for all of the constructive and flattering comments. I’m glad the post has sparked some discussion — just as I’d hoped, there are already several great ideas that add to it.
@Kate: Couldn’t agree more that the opposing viewpoint idea has at least some of its roots in covering politics. Also couldn’t agree more about following the money — that’s one of the first rules of journalism, and doing so leads to lots of great stories, investigative and otherwise.
@Rob: You’re very kind. I’d give my colleagues, and our audience, more credit, though!
@Ed and @Deepa: Twitter is a great place to find sources, and to become one. As far as getting papers, asking the authors usually works. If it doesn’t, try the journal or the authors’ institution. Most are quite happy to help people who are going to write about their research.

By: George

George — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:24:25 +0000

Totally agree. There was an article about a year ago in Skeptical Inquirer that address a similar question, namely “how to tell pseudoscientific claims”. As I recall, anecdote and hedged claims and references to “scientific” studies without citations featured into it.
Two advantages that pseudoscience has over scientific journalism is the personalizing of the story, and there seems to be some evidence that humans are predisposed to understanding story more than, say, statistics; and the fact that it takes a lot less work and organization to write a bad article than one that is researched and cited.