Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] journalism



I written this before for other lists, but IMO it is almost impossible to know the facts on any issue (and becoming more difficult even on scientific topics). Most of our information comes through the media--TV/Radio/Print/Internet. We still have scientific journals for the science, but access and even understanding can be difficult outside one's own field. The problem with the mainstream media is that only SELECTED facts are presented, some 'facts' aren't, and whole stories and issues are omitted by selective outlets. This latter is probably the most used form of manipulation used by the mainstream media. My dismay on this dates all the way back to the Viet Nam years when I tried to really determine what was going on and did so by reading everything--from the far left to the far right. Everyone presented 'facts' to support their views--problem was that A's facts were not the same as B's. It was not necessarily that either was lying, just selecting. Problem is, how do you uncover ALL the facts to make a reasoned decision. I just don't think you can in many situations. Therefore I've taken the view that if the issue is really important to you, go with your instincts and best reasoned ideas based on available information while with everything else--don't bother. ;-(

Rick


----- Original Message ----- From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] journalism


Here is a great illustration of your point about journalistic inaccuracies -

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002882/

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Denker [jsd@av8n.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:03 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] journalism

On 01/14/2011 09:41 AM, marx@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:

We are especially sensitive to
science and technology reporting....

However, it then makes you wonder how much of
other reporting is factually correct.

In my experience, almost none of it. There are occasional
instances of journalistic courage and rectitude, such as
the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, and I deeply respect
that --- but it isn't something you can rely on.

On more than a dozen occasions that I can recall, I have had
first-hand or otherwise-solid knowledge of something that was
covered in the press. In every case, the coverage was wildly
inaccurate. In many cases, it was pure fabrication.

-- Once I saw a guy standing on the beach, talking into a
camera. Every minute or so he would identify himself as the
"local weather man" for some far-away locality (a different
locality each time) and then recite the same canned speech
about how dangerous the conditions were where he was, due
to the approaching hurricane.

The fact was, the guy was standing on a slight rise, sort
of a dune, and the camera was angled slightly upward so
as to not show the hordes of small children playing in the
water behind him.

-- Once a WSJ reporter came to Bell Labs and spent the entire
day interviewing one person after another until he found one
schmuck friendly enough and foolish enough to not vehemently
disagree with the preconceived line the reporter was pushing.
Then the reporter left and wrote the article he wanted to
write, citing the schmuck as the "source" for his story ...
and utterly disregarding the dozens of people who had told
him quite plainly that he was diametrically wrong.

-- Once in the middle of an economic downturn, the local newspaper
ran a story: "Hughes gets new contract, starts production on new
batch of missiles". They touted it as evidence of an economic
turnaround. The next day, hundreds of people were lined up at
the Hughes site, applying for jobs. The Hughes staff had to
explain that the "new" contract had been in the pipeline for
years, that it was a follow-on to an old contract, and the new
production rate was /less/ than the old production rate, so they
were not hiring, and were in fact laying people off. In this
case, was the paper lying, or just incredibly lazy and reckless?
I don't know. Either way, the effect on the job-seekers was
remarkably cruel. How do you explain to your spouse that you
can't get a job -- can't even apply for a job -- even though
the paper said they had gotten a nifty new contract?

-- And then there were the stories about the WMD in Iraq that
Dick Cheney fed to Judith Miller "on background" and then got
published on the front page of the New York Times. The truth
was not hard to find, for instance by interviewing any of the
inspectors, or just going to the IAEA web site. The McClatchey
papers (to their credit) figured it out ... but almost every
other news outlet went with the party line.

-- The list goes on and on and on.

And then there is the more sophisticated but still astonishing
type of dishonesty that has to do with what is /not/ published.
For example, consider the "secret bombing" of Cambodia at the
start of the Nixon administration? Secret? Really????
-- The Cambodians knew they were being bombed.
-- The North Vietnamese knew.
-- The Chinese knew.
-- The Soviets knew.

The only people who were in the dark about this "secret" were
the American public. This was particularly ludicrous near the
US border, because you could walk into Canada or Mexico and
buy a newspaper that had full coverage of the bombing ... but
the US papers were nearly silent about it.

Secret bombing? Secret bombing??? How can any sentient being
entertain even for a moment the idea of secret bombing?

================

Note that I am not complaining about "science reporting". The
disease affects all reporting. On the other hand:

James Randi says "Scientists are easier to fool than children".
He knows what he is talking about, because he is in the business
of fooling people for a living, in his capacity as a magician.
His point is simply that scientists are not accustomed to being
lied to. We see mistakes all the time, but usually not systematic
fabrication and intentional deception. And if a scientist gets
caught falsifying data, that's the end of his career.

It's nice working in an environment where you don't need to worry
too much about being lied to ... but
a) You need to worry about it a little bit. Don't get complacent.
Scientific misconduct is always a possibility, even if it is
very rare. Vigilance is required to make sure it stays rare.
b) The rest of the world does not play by the same rules.

It's fun to imagine what it would be like if pundits, reporters,
and politicians were held to the same standards as scientists.
If they ever got caught lying about their résumé or their results,
they would get fired and disqualified from holding any similar job.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l