Sensationalism

[Royston]

Regarding the recent Horizon documentary concerning the LHC, I was wondering if sensationalizing a topic really does have detrimental effects i.e. will physics just carry on running its course even if the general public is disillusioned by massive claims, or will it really damage the field of physics ?

 

Does anyone have any examples where a report has sensationalized a topic and it has had clear and damaging effects to a certain field e.g. (off the top of my head) the topic of cloning.

[ed84c]

The dangers of nuclear power

[Pangloss]

I'm kinda confused, Snail, how is the LHC viewed as dangerous? Can you elaborate a bit for those of us who don't have access to Horizon? (I've heard you UK folks mention that show before and it sounds like a good program, but I don't think we get episodes of it here unless PBS picks it up once in a blue moon.)

[Royston]

Oh, sorry about that, here's a link...http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...r+Exper iment

 

EDIT: Err, doesn't appear to be on google video anymore.

 

I hope Severian doesn't mind, but he states the flaws a lot better than I could.

 

It was horrible because it made so many wrong statements. For example' date=' the very first thing they said is that the LHC may create a black hole which would swallow the Earth!

 

It was horrible because it gave a wrong impression of what we are trying to acheive. It focussed on the big bang and astrophysics ("The Hubble telescope of inner space"!) and not on what we are really trying to find out.

 

It was horrible because it mangled up interviews into tiny pieces which they could manipulate to make say what they wanted to say rather than what the interviewee wanted to say.

 

It was horrible because it was the usual attempt to sensationalize everything, and pander to the cult of personality. Should we be surprised that the physicist who was interviewed (Brian Cox) was chosen not for his physics knowledge, but for the fact that he used to be in a boy band?[/quote']

 

Now, the above is really just an example, but I intended the thread to be more general. I'm more concerned with, does sensationalizing really have detrimental effects to a particular branch of science, and how does this come about. If the public have been misinformed, say, like the earlier example on nuclear power, has ignorance really hampered progress in nuclear power, has the number of power stations actually been effected whether there was public outcry or not...sorry if that's an obvious question, I haven't read much on 'that' particular topic.

 

So, is science really at risk if the masses are misinformed, or like I said before, does scientific progress just carry on regardless.

[the tree]

Your link is broked, Snail.

 

I agree with ed84c, I get annoyed with all the "omfg! nuclear power will make us dead!" talk which is largely the result of the media focusing on when it goes wrong, I fear that it'll be detrimental to more than science though.

[Royston]

Your link is broked, Snail.

 

I agree with ed84c, I get annoyed with all the "omfg! nuclear power will make us dead!" talk which is largely the result of the media focusing on when it goes wrong, I fear that it'll be detrimental to more than science though.

 

Agreed, this is something I should really look up myself...but what I was after were specifics i.e this action group was started due to this misinformation from the media, which caused disruption or delays to this area of science. Also if research is hampered in one country, was it still progressing in another, and how severe was this delay / disruption globally, with that in mind...I'm presuming that's quite hard to gauge.

[the tree]

Oh you want a case study on sensationalism? All the Wi-Fi articles here, although no horrible detrimental affect has happened yet it's something to keep an eye on.

[Royston]

Awesome, thanks for that, this really does raise an eyebrow...

 

“They wanted to take some mesurements in my class room' date=' compare them to the radiation from a phone mast and film some kids using wireless laptops. They introduced “the engineer”, whom I googled.”

 

[i']He found it was the same man who runs Powerwatch, the pressure group campaigning against mobile phones, Wi-Fi, and “electrosmog”. In Alasdair’s Powerwatch shop you can buy shielded netting for your windows at just £70.50 per metre, and special shielding paint at £50.99 per litre. To paint a small eleven foot square bedroom in your house with Powerwatch’s products you would need about 10 litres, costing you £500[/i].

 

[MolotovCocktail]

Lol! looks like some people know how to use sensationalism to horde in lots of money!

 

The media in the US has been so sensationalized that it is causing people to not care about what is going on anymore (e.g. You don't hear too much news about NASA nowadays, other than shuttle launches or anything regarding aliens. Also, they hardly, if ever, talk about Darfur). That is detrimental because if nobody cares then they are not being informed about the truth of the matter, and thus they remain ignorant. This applies to more things than science; in fact, a study has shown that you are more likely to be better informed by watching Jon Stewart!

[the tree]

I'm sure that works both ways: well informed people may be more likely to watch Jon Stewart.

[MolotovCocktail]

actually, wait, here is a quote that describes just how bad the situation is in America:

 

For example' date=' a National Geographic survey says [b']63 percent[/b] of that age group (18-25) can't locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East even though the USA has been fighting there for more than three years.

 

That may be because 80 percent of younger Americans don't even own a world map. Ninety percent of the young'uns don't know where Afghanistan is. Ninety percent. And here's the best. Twenty-five percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 could not identify Dick Cheney as vice president.

 

 

And here's even more sources, from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/

 

On top of that' date=' "Daily Show" viewers [b']know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news[/b], according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.

 

Scary!

[insane_alien]

that should be a barrier to voting. if you can't name the leaders of the current government then you sure as hell ain't voting on the next one.

[Royston]

That is detrimental because if nobody cares then they are not being informed about the truth of the matter, and thus they remain ignorant.

 

That's interesting, and another reason why sensationalism is not only potentially dangerous for science, but could possibly, if what you say is true, maybe at a point that it's becoming irreversible. The media can't 'up its figures' unless an article is newsworthy, which in turn requires the article to be sensationalized. If the public is barraged with sensationalized scientific articles, television programmes et.c then if the problem is remedied, this could incite even less public interest...just for the simple fact, it's dull unless you understand the details.

 

Just to take another spin on the argument, and fueling my idea to start tackling the media / science discrepancy (possibly just a pipe dream for now) I found this article...

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WilliamRusher/2007/05/17/the_problem_of_junk_science&Comments=true

 

But, Bethell notes, "Scientists seem to enjoy a measure of immunity." If a statement is made by a scientist in his professional capacity, non-scientists are afraid to contradict him[/b']. Even the media, whom we can usually count on to report opposing points of view, seldom look for information contradicting what a seemingly impartial scientist has declared to be the case.

 

This is too general IMO, and it entirely depends on the topic in hand...why deliberately look for a contradiction in certain instances, should we just confuse the 'non-scientific' public even further. See bold...the non-scientist shouldn't be afraid to contradict, but they should know why certain information can't be contradicted. Since when is science just formed on opinions...the media can report an opposing 'point of view' if the article is 'just an opinion'.

 

So Bethell has written an entire book to expose some of the liberal myths that are forever being foisted on us with the important help of scientists, who are forever laying down the law without ever being effectively challenged by the media[/b'].

 

I'm not familiar with Townhall...is this a bias website, I haven’t had time to have a proper browse. Any thoughts on the content of this article ? Going back to the dangers of nuclear power, I found it hard to get an impartial view of the severity of the problem...if anyone knows of a good source, I'd be very interested.

[the tree]

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a case where sensationalism and misinformation have definitely damaged science, you could probably get a huge case study out of that.

[Royston]

Thanks again The Tree, I'll look into it.