Question:

Goldacre (2009) argues that “the media create a parody of science” (p.225) and that “stories involving science must be dumbed down, in a desperate attempt to seduce and engage the ignorant.” How strong is this case? Illustrate your argument with examples drawn from recent British media coverage.
Please use the key and the background text

Answer:

Title: Journalism

 

Introduction

News stories involving science are difficult to craft, even for the most experienced journalists. This is mainly because the terms used to explain most scientific concepts and ideas fall completely out of the realm of everyday use. Goldacre (2009, p. 225) argues that stories involving science are commonly dumbed down in an effort to engage the majority who are ignorant. In ordinary cases, science writers will always have a new story to tell. Although this may be viewed their key strength, from a different perspective, it may also be viewed as a weakness. Although the human beings are by their very nature seekers of novelty, they become too easily wary of things that are unfamiliar, untested, and unclear. Yet this is the realm in which science writers have to wade all the time.

Goldacre’s argument holds a lot of truth, particularly in the contemporary context. Science writers are always under the temptation to keep writing a successful thriller that closely resembles or resonates with the previous one. In such a scenario, interest is only on stories where there are as few possible outcomes as possible, more or less like in sport journalism. The same case may be said regarding political stories, where politicians are expected to undertake democratic maneuvers that resemble soap operas. In this same vein, it is their job to ensure that whatever stories that they write turn out to be of interest to the target audience.

This paper set out to determine the strength of Goldacre’s (2009, p. 225) argument that media tends to create a complete parody of science, and that stories that dwell on scientific issues are normally dumbed down in efforts to engage and sustain the attention of the ignorant. Throughout this discussion, examples are provided to illustrate the arguments made.

The media’s creation of ‘parody of science’

Parody is literary work in which there is an imitation of the features of style of a specific work or author, with the aim of creating ridicule or comic effect. According to Goldacre (2009, p. 225), the resolve among science writers to resort to parody is normally a desperate attempt to keep readers engaged on the complicated scientific issue under discussion. These writers normally have to be fully concerned with anything concerning the universe every day, and in the course of this engagement, it is unavoidable that they will have to write some details that have never been elaborated on before.

The writers have to read numerous scientific journals, attend press conferences in universities and research institutes, seek clarifications from environmentalists, make calls to scholars so as to seek their opinion on an issues that lies within their areas of specialty, and so on. When eventually such writers settle down to put together their story of the day, a key problem is on how to ensure that the story makes sense to lay people while at the same time not being viewed as a distortion of facts or an idiot’s guide by scientists.

Bauer & Bucchi (2010, p. 95) gives numerous examples of the sort of stories that science writers may have to write in a matter of a few days. The examples include an explanation of the dark energy that constitutes 73% of the unaccounted-for mass in the universe, attempts by US military scientists to train honeybees for eventual deployment as sniffers of explosives, and the latest attempt by scientists to test Einstein’s theory of general relativity (Bauer & Bucchi 2010, p. 95). Other typical areas of coverage in scientific stories include the link between genetic mutation and adult response to abuse during childhood, and evidence of the ability by sheep to remember faces of other sheep (Bauer & Bucchi 2010, p. 96). Most of these stories are extremely difficult to tell, mainly because the language used to tell them is normally unfamiliar to the typical reader.

Indeed, the language problem lies at the heart of science writers’ desperation to make their stories relevant to the target audience. In most scientific journals from which these writers get their information, incomprehensible words are used so often that it is virtually impossible to completely tell a story without mentioning these words. In an effort to overcome this challenge, the writers sometimes opt to use parody, such that the resulting ridicule and comic effect gives readers a reason to go through the whole story.

Similarly, the use of polysyllabic words cannot be ruled out in science writing. In fact, it is usually the norm rather than exception in this form of writing. It is perhaps in the use of polysyllabic words that parody comes out most clearly. In efforts to substitute these complex terms, science writers end up using clichés that add to the existing element of parody. Examples of scientific terms that have been turned into clichés include ‘Pandora’s box’ and ‘the magic bullet’. Overuse of these terms in journalese has resulted in the loss of their original meanings.

However, a general view pervades to the effect that the problem of science writing has to do with not just translation but understanding the concepts being explained. Bauer & Bucchi (2010, p. 96) puts it simply by asserting that ‘science is hard’. This view permeated society, and for this reason, people do not seem to be interested in scientific explanations. Science writers know this and they are wary of being loners in their work. This creates the need to seduce and engage as many ignorant minds as possible, hence the use of parody and dumbed-down explanations.

Immediately readers notice a word that they cannot explain, they immediately stop reading the science article (Byers 2011, p. 32). This makes it necessary for words to be carefully selected, in as much as the issue being addressed is a technical one. Although scientists love the intricate details that make science what it is, that is, the probabilities, confounding factors, and empirical analyses, lay people do not quite like these aspects. They are only interested in the outcomes of this science and their implications. Therefore, science writers have to learn to leave out science and communicate only its results.

Longino (1990, p. 84) notes that in such circumstances, it is not surprising that the relationship between science and journalism has always been an uneasy one . Although scientists have an obligation to communicate their findings to society, they are never at ease while disclosing their findings through journalists, who have to contend with an apathetic audience. In such a situation, science writers never want to appear to be the ones writing boring stories. They resort to ‘passing the buck’ to scientists, mainly by parodying their work.

Sloppy science vis-à-vis the philosophy of science

In his book Bad Science, Goldacre (2009, p. 12) fiercely attacks the sloppy science that has become prevalent in contemporary media coverage of biomedical issues. Ben Goldacre, himself a medical doctor, blames the emergence of this pseudoscience on nutritionists, pharmaceutical companies, homeopaths, and slack journalists. However, Goldacre (2009, p. 12) is quick to emphasize that the underlying aim of his book is not to attack the peddlers of error but to raise awareness on the good science through an examination of the bad science.

To get an idea of what is good science, it is imperative to examine Okasha’s (2002) ideas on the philosophy of science. According to Okasha (2002, p. 41), all scientific explanations should typically be structured in a logical manner in the form of an argument, whereby a set of premises are presented and a conclusion deduced or inferred from these premises. In the conclusion, the objective is stating that the phenomenon under explanation actually occurs, while the premises’ role is to tell readers why the conclusion arrived at is true.

By reporting on science, journalists are in essence trying to explain these premises and conclusions as well as the relationships between them. Unfortunately, the attention span the typical newspaper or online article reader is extremely short, and science writers know this (Oreskes & Conway, 2010, p. 72). To avoid the risk of losing the reader, the writers often ignore numerous elements that are crucial to the authenticity of the article. For example, they fail to ascertain whether the premises are true, whether the relationship between the premises and conclusion hold, and whether a deductive argument has been developed. The writers may even ignore the general laws that are normally contained in premises. They fear, perhaps, that by mentioning such laws of nature such as ‘all metals are conductors of electricity’ they will turn the article into an elementary science class (Okasha 2002, p. 41). Such omissions are the ones that lead to sloppy science.

This explains why Goldacre (2009, p. 12) puts emphasis is on the importance of presenting evidence in the validation of any treatment or experiment by a science writer. According to Goldacre (2009), most science writers stop at giving evidence for new phenomena; they fail to go into the next step, that of confirming that the data indeed shows what is purported to be the outcome. This lack of confirmation makes the risk of over-interpretation high, even in situations where experiments may otherwise have been valid.

The other objections raised by Goldacre regarding science writing include misuse of science literature and lies and false statistics. Regarding misuse of science literature, the main areas of concern include over-interpretation of data and underplaying confounding variables. Moreover, some writers only pinpoint those results that fit into the hypothesis. Confounding factors are best put into consideration through an analysis of an intervention study that is appropriately controlled. Science writers also have a tendency to refer to studies that have never been published in peer-reviewed journals (Kuhn 1996, p. 157). The writers fail to appreciate that press releases are normally overenthusiastic while peer-reviewed work is more authoritative.

Perhaps the most damaging weakness in science writing is presentation of lies in science articles. Statistics are normally abused as writers try to make the news look dramatic. An excellent example is the preference of the notion of ‘relative risk increase’ instead of ‘absolute risk increase’ in a newspaper headline describing a finding on a new risk factor for a deadly disease.

Additionally, statistical alteration may take the form of the use of an inappropriate sort of test (Dunbar, 1996, p. 118). Although this can be accidental at times, some writers deliberately use inappropriate statistical tests so as to generate outcomes that sound positive. It may be difficult to pinpoint this statistical abuse, particularly among scientists who lack sufficient grounding in statistics. For lay people, it is virtually impossible to point out this statistical abuse.

Examples from recent British media coverage

There are numerous examples that illustrate how the British media has in recent years been creating a parody of science as argued by Goldacre (2009, p. 225). In one such study, Jones, 2011, p. 15) sought to assess the level of factuality in reporting of scientific findings at the BBC. The study entailed consultations and solicited submissions both within the broadcasting corporations and outside its precincts, Jones also read publications on science as reported in the media, as well as assessed numerous television and radio broadcasts. The findings of the study showed that the output was of excellent quality in terms of breadth, impartiality, and level of professionalism. However, it lacked the level of collaboration required of the science enterprise; at the BBC, the subject of science is addressed in a fractionated manner. No cooperation or consultation takes place between the department of Current Affairs and that Science issues. There is no link between these two departments and the one on history either.

The report by Jones (2011, p. 16) also contained complaints regarding accuracy. This accuracy is caused by various factors, including the target audience, lack of contact with scientists, use of a restricted range of journals, and overreliance on press releases. The BBC was also found to have failed by not seeking the advice of science specialists in matters of policy reporting. The lack of a specialist’s perspective at the BBC is replaced with the use of an over-confrontational tone when reporting science news (Jones, 2011, p. 16).

The BBC also stands accused of creating a false balance by requesting for opinion on science news from people who are not qualified to do so. Moreover, the corporation was also found to have suffered from the problem of outright dishonesty spurred by conflicts of interest in the process of science reporting. As Jones (2011, p. 16) points out, BBC’s science writers and reporters have not yet realized that it is not possible to balance between opinion and scientific facts.

Jones (2011, p. 16) ends by suggesting that science communication at the BBC is in need of a radical transformation in order to ensure impartiality. It is clear that the BBC also needs to widen the range of links available for science outputs, complete with a forum for consultation among specialists in different fields. As Jones (2011, p. 33) regrettably learnt this from his extensive consultations during the study, members of certain science units were prohibited from writing about certain science issues. For instance, NHU (National History Unit) members were warned to keep off from areas of evolution and ecology that were very scientific.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Goldacre (2009, p. 225) is right in his argument that the media is responsible for creating a parody of science. As the case of BBC shows, science writers routinely dumb down stories in a desperate effort to make them relevant to the ignorant. Many scholars have reinforced this argument through support from different empirical examples.

References

Bauer, M, & Bucchi, M, (Eds.), 2010, Journalism, science and society: science communication between news and public relations, Routledge, London.

Byers, W, 2011, The blind spot: science and the crisis of uncertainty, Princeton, Princeton.

Dunbar, R, 1996, The trouble with science, Faber and Faber, New York.

Goldacre, B, 2009, Bad science, 4^th Estate, London.

Jones, S, 2011, A review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of Science, retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf  on March 3, 2012.

Kuhn, T, 1996, The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd Revised Edition), University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Longino, H, 1990, Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Okasha, S, 2002, Philosophy of science: a very short introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oreskes, N, & Conway, E, 2010, Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, Bloomsbury, London.