For Clients and Friends of Potomac Communications Group, Inc.
Science and the Media, By the Numbers
ith his pith helmet on and a keen sense of observation, David Murray navigates through the murky world of science reporting in newspapers and magazines, hunting for bungled numbers, contradictory statements and unexplainable conclusions. He doesn’t have to look hard, he says – news articles are full of oversimplifications and exaggerations that distort the scientific reality being covered.
Murray, director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, has captured dozens of examples of such shortcomings in, It Ain’t Necessarily So – How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, co-authored with Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter.
He has found that journalists have great difficulty accurately presenting subjects that involve science or statistics, especially if they have a public policy implication – AIDS, diseases, nuclear power, etc. (see sidebar below).
Their biggest fallacy, he believes, is that they look primarily to other journalists, rather than to technical experts or scientific literature. “They look to their peers to see how others have covered it,” he says. “If you drop some bad information into that, it just feeds the whole herd in a hurry.”
He believes that the consequences can be serious. Science and research results are increasingly driving the public policy agenda of such topics as stem-cell research, storage of high-level nuclear waste, global warming and AIDS. “Journalism is just an overwhelming engine of the future,” Murray says, “in Washington, in the courtroom, up on Capitol Hill, and in the news.” Reporting that misrepresents the facts can lead to misinformed public opinion and public policy.
Posing a Challenge
Murray sympathizes with the challenge that science writers face. “The problem with science is that it rarely gives the certainty that journalists need,” he says. “And few science writers today really understand or have the time to learn about the subject they’re covering.”
An anthropologist by training, Murray carefully studied the habits and actions of journalists as they put together their daily stories. He observed the obstacles they face: “A short period of time to complete the story and a 3 p.m. deadline. They have to make something accessible and vivid, and it’s got to be concrete. They’ve got to quote some people, and they have to make sense of things for which their background did not prepare them.” He adds, “Only a handful of journalists in the country are really good science writers who were actually trained in the sciences.”
Additionally, there are many organizations that already have an agenda or want a specific policy outcome. These groups “know how to dress up their argument with scientific or quasi-scientific sounds.”
In Washington, the challenge is more pointed. “The numbers aren’t really true or false in Washington – they’re either usable or unusable,” says Murray. And if, as a reporter, you don’t understand the numbers, you’re gullible and you’re going to be taken in, he said.
Looking forward, Murray believes organizations and communications professionals should take responsibility for educating the journalists who may or may not be familiar with the science they’re covering. Providing them with appropriate fact sheets and data presented in a clear, understandable manner can help ensure that an issue is represented correctly.
When you put your numbers out there, he says, don’t forget to tell your story. “The data is not the source of public persuasion,” Murray says. Give compelling visual images along with the data to illustrate the true impact of the story, as well as an element of human dimension.
Does It Add Up?
Meanwhile, he argues that journalists have a responsibility to question the information given them. The task of a good journalist, Murray says, is to not run the path of least resistance and use the most alarming numbers. They need to ask the question, “Does this add up?” Murray believes that it is essential for consumers, as well as communications professionals to be number- and media-savvy. We should all be aware of how the news is made, how selective and alarmist it can be, and how activists and "spin groups" can affect it. Murray urges everyone to supplement their favorite news outlets with multiple sources.
In this regard, he believes that the Internet has become a remarkable tool for the public. It allows you to go back, double check and compare sources, in much the same way that a reporter does. Don’t assume all news sources are reporting the same information. Caveat lecteur, he warns - “let the reader beware.”
To read more of It Ain’t Necessarily So, click here.
Past articles from our newsletter: