In most newspaper articles, journalists inserts the formula: "Scientists consider ...". Would not it be necessary to force this formula to sound "Some scientists think ...". Otherwise, we are ridiculing science and scientists and making them an element of journalistic propaganda!
Andrzej:
This is a critical question in the area of leadership communications for those in public office. Journalism has been measured in my research using big data analysis of their coverage of policy issues and public actors. Too often news articles seek what appears to be scientific "facts" in order to make their by line's case, rather than inform the public.
When science and data are abused or not rationally reported with the terms you suggest above e.g. "some scientists have concluded" or with a "small sample size used - one scientist has concluded," essential public information is weaponized to create a story/ rather than seek truth.
If the policy matter was public health or safety indices we place the good of the people in jeopardy. A matter of ethics yes, and a matter of keeping the scientific community out of the fray of weaponized propaganda another.
Perhaps if scientists were insistent in having their work be appropriately characterized it may help. However, editors and owners of the five major news conglomerates in the US for example may have their own agenda.
The question becomes - how accountability for reporting scientific findings may be best implemented? Given the internet and online publishing there may be a niche for scientific reporting? Data driven news?
Thank you for raising this important issue
Paul 't Hart
In order to protect the good of the people there must be a truth (instead of a fray of experts, or of politicians for that matter), even if there was no truth. It is journalism that creates the truth in the last instance.
Data driven news - an interesting and worthwhile idea!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force