Uncritical Science News
In Nature, Colin Macilwain says science reporting is too uncritical:
[Science journalism] converts original scientific findings, via a production line of embargoed press releases from journals and universities, into a steady stream of largely uncritical stories. … In stark contrast to proper investigations of issues such as public corruption, corporate maleficence or industrial health and safety — essentially silly stories about science continue to fill newspapers and news broadcasts. Some science reporters are uneasy about this situation, but most accept it. … Most [scientists] seem to be largely content with a system that disguises the very human process of scientific discovery as a seamless stream of ingenious and barely disputed ‘breakthroughs’. Like other elites, researchers feel no great yearning to be held to account by the press. ….
There is a need for dedicated newspaper sections, radio and TV programmes, more akin to existing sports coverage, that can provide detailed, critical assessment of the scientific enterprise for people who really like science. Reporters and editors could then engage with sets of findings and associated issues of real societal importance in the news pages, asking the hard questions about money, influence and human frailty that much of today’s science journalism sadly ignores. …
The machine … serves the short-term interests of its participants. … Researchers, universities and funding agencies get clips that show that their work has had ‘impact’. And readers get snippets, such as how red or white wine makes you live longer or less long, to chat about at the water-cooler. … Science is being misrepresented as a cacophony of sometimes divergent but nonetheless definitive ‘findings’, each warmly accepted by colleagues, on the record, as deeply significant. The public learns nothing about the actual cut and thrust of the scientific process.
Yes, science reporting is less critical than political, business, or sports reporting. Since the media is very competitive, readers/viewers must prefer it that way. But why?
First, we are far more suspicious of bids for dominance-status than for prestige-status. We see politicians and businesses as threatening to dominate us and so we are eager to watch out for illicit power grabs. In contrast, we see science, arts, literature, etc. as only awarding prestige, not power, and we are less worried about illicit prestige grabs. We mainly care about prestigious stuff as ways to see who is more impressive, and a tricky “illicit” prestige grab is itself pretty impressive, so little harm done.
Also, we like some critical reporting on sports, music, and literature because we are expected to choose sides in these areas as part of our identity. We are supposed to have our favorite band, team, or author, and so we appreciate news rehearsing arguments we might offer for or against such things
But we are not supposed to have favorite positions on science disputes. Science is more like our communal religion, something that distinguishes us advanced insiders from those ignorant outsiders, and we are eager to signal being part of us and not them. It is like how, aside from worrying about power-grabs by our military leaders, we are not each supposed to have a different favorite war strategy for our troops – that would be divisive and we prefer to show that we are united against them.
Sciences of politics or business are of course the obvious exception, as we suspect illicit power in politics or business might be supported by illicit scientists. So we do see critical reporting in these sort of sciences.
I'm not convinced that science journalism is any worse than other forms of journalism. I think it's bad, but I get the impression that all journalism is equally bad. I am not at school so I can't read the full article, but nothing in the excerpted text makes the case that non-scientific reporting is any better. I think that it is very likely that, in general, the world is a very nuanced place and journalists feel that are in the business of telling us fairy tales about that world.
Think about it: How often are polls reported uncritically? How often does the business section contain stories about what seem like obviously voodoo indicators?
I've found that any time that I've seen an article that deals with something with which I am familiar that it is often wrong in at least some minor way, but often also in some major and fundamental way.
I think before you start hypothesizing about the reason why science reporting is "different" you should probably establish that it is, in fact, different.
These reasons make sense, and can also explain why Ann's hypothesis otherwise feels right. The average person doesn't feel qualified to have opinions (and they're usually right), and most science headlines either demonstrate prestige status plus magic babble, or promises of technology that will empower the average person at best, and not work at worst. But the exceptions make the case.
The two most visible attempts at science criticism in media recently have been climate change, and the Large Hadron Collider. There has also been negative attention toward the H1N1 Vaccine. Before that the media was on about GM foods.
Climate change policy affects people directly, and has to do with their money (easy territory for suggesting dominance signals), so people will often form an opinion and then rationalize it. People do convince themselves that they understand money, or at least that certain arguments by columnists "feel right". It's comfortable territory, in which the average person has formed some means of judgment, in order to survive, and detect signals of dominance.
With the LHC, the media found success with the doomsday notion, because it was easy to argue that the odds that the world would be destroyed were equal to or greater than the odds that the average viewer would lose anything directly from stopping the experiment.
In both cases, it's when scientists sent what could easily be rationalized as a dominance signal that the public was receptive to criticism.
Then there are the people who don't trust any scientific study (food science being the biggest target I've seen.) I'm in Santa Cruz, a town with a fair share of anti-intellectualism, and it's always accusations of a corporate so-called-science conspiracy which seeks dominance of some sort. Only a small number of non-scientists ever question scientific integrity without mentioning power or money.
Beyond scary dominance-signaling headlines, it seems that the best hope science writers have is to combat peoples' science inferiority complex, so that enough people can make judgments in the realm to play the science status game too. It seems gross to me, encouraging people to express interest in science as a status signal, but it would elevate its worth in society, certainly no detriment to scientists with other motivations like curiosity.