Re: [Phys-l] dealing with the media +- evolution

[kyle forinash <kforinas@ius.edu>]

No Jack I think I agree with you. My point was that it is useful to put 
yourself in their shoes. They do ask loaded questions but in my view 
this is because they don't trust you- they figure you are going to 
stretch the truth in your favor and it is their job to trip you up in 
those lies. I had some contact with a local reporter on several 
occasions and eventually came to think he was trying to do a sort of 
Columbo act; pretending he was dumb while slowly trying to trip you up 
with silly questions repeated several different ways. I came away 
thinking the guy really did want to find out the 'truth' in some sense 
but he was hypersensitive about trusting what people said (probably a 
useful reaction in some cases). Some other reporters I've met just 
seemed dumb or more interested in a story, any story, whether there was 
any truth in it or not (news as entertainment). But in general I don't 
think they are malicious.

And John, my complaint about reporters finding two sides was about 
science reporting. In the case of evolution as long as there is one 
'scientist' out there who expresses any doubts about any aspect of 
evolution there will be an 'evolution debate' in the press.

Your quotes, however, are not all equivalent. How many are from op ed 
pieces, how many from a debate or panel discussion (where alternating 
opinions are expressed), and how many were made intentionally to get a 
rise out of someone being interviewed? That all seems fair game; we want 
some analysis, even if we don't agree with it. Op ed pieces are not the 
same thing as reporting.

You are also being disingenuous. These quotes all came from a report 
which specifically tried to find opinions or analysis (not just 
reporting) from the press which turned out to be (in hindsight) wrong 
(or at least  short sited; the US military machine did roll over the 
Irak army in very short order as claimed- however there is much more to 
wining a war). The first line on this web page talks about Brit Hume's 
speech (speech mind you) critiquing "the media's supposedly pessimistic 
assessment of the Irak War." So, although I do not agree with Hume's 
analysis, he WAS (at least in his mind) doing what reporters do, i.e. 
presenting a second point of view.

I think your quotes speak more to a different problem the press has. The 
blurring of opinion with reporting. We always have had op ed pieces but 
it use to be you could tell the difference between that and straight 
reporting. In that sense I agree with you; some "reporting" is really 
closer to opinion (or entertainment) and is not even handed in 
presenting two sides of a story. Fox is particularly egregious but 
anyone who gets all their news from only one source cannot consider 
themselves well informed.

kyle

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:44:56 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] dealing with the media +- evolution
> To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804042342340.27862@theory.hep.anl.gov>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> My goodness!  So the careful, conscientious reporters that I have
> occasionaloly encountered were mirages?  The class "reporters" stand
> condemned?
>                         Regards,
>                                 Jack
>
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Forinash III, Kyle wrote:
>
> > I don't agree that the media is deliberately malicious, for the most part. But there are things which are useful to keep in mind when talking to the press.
> >
> > 1) Reporters are trained to find two sides of everything. They really don't care if one side represents 99% of opinions and the other side only 1%, they want to have a 'story'- to sell the paper/magazine/etc. This generally makes for very bad science reporting. Good science reporting often makes a story by following a thread of development, following the conceptual evolution of an idea over time and different groups involved, how the idea gained consensus; kind of like a mystery story.
> >
> > 2) Reporters automatically assume that you are lying. They assume everyone is going to lie or bend the truth to their own advantage or otherwise say things that are self serving. You are not an authority to them, just some other shmuck trying to get them to present your cause in a favorable light. You can help reporters believe you if you can point them to corroborating information (books, web sites, other professionals, etc.). They are going to fact check you anyway so help them out.
> >
> > kyle
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

--
------------------------------------------
 'Violence is the last refuge of the
     incompetent.'
            Issac Asimov

  kyle forinash   812-941-2039
  kforinas@ius.edu
  http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------