Popular Misconceptions II: Science in the Media

Bad Science

The way I see it, a lot of the confusion and mistrust of science among the general public comes from  the way it's reported on in the media.



Mainstream media relies largely on advertising dollars to sustain itself, and advertisers want their ads to be seen by as many people as possible - the more people you can reliably reach, the more you can charge for advertising. This means that media outlets have to work hard to build and maintain an audience, which is not an easy thing to do. One common method for grabbing the attention of potential audience members, which I've discussed and illustrated before, is headline sensationalism.

Obviously, I'm all for drawing attention to scientific issues, but when we rely on hyperbolic statements to do so, we create a flawed image of what the science is saying. For example, say a study was performed with the resulting observation that cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease. A media outlet could report that "Recent study suggests possible link between high-cholesterol diet and heart disease", or they could just say "Eggs: Death for Breakfast!" Which would get your attention faster?

This creates the idea among the audience that the science is decided, the hard facts have been uncovered and we need to make an immediate change in how we operate; when in fact, no consensus has yet been reached on the issue. Then, as scientists continue to study the issue, the causes and correlations, eliminating variables and defining related factors, it could be found that the conclusions of the original study were wrong, the data was flawed or misinterpreted. So now new reports have to relay the new information to the audience, and again, you've got to have their attention. If the headline says "Continued study suggests new factors in heart health, cholesterol intake of less importance", the reader/viewer/listener has already moved on. On the other hand, you could say "Scientists were Wrong! Eggs: The New Superfood!" Now you've got their attention, but public trust in the scientific method is diminished.

An example that keeps cropping up in my social media feeds is the EM Drive, which media reports love to describe as breaking the laws of physics by allowing propulsion through a vacuum without fuel. Of course, they tend to leave out the fact that NASA's experiment showed propulsive force so small it was actually within the margin of error for the test itself. In other words, it was probably a fluke.