From the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON and the “fake news is news we don’t like” department comes this press release that made me laugh. While there’s always been tabloids that make up “alien abductions”, Bigfoot, HAARP, and the like – science has never had a need to bother responding to it. The one exception I know of is this study definitively showing the chemtrails nonsense to be just that.
But the laughable thing is that this PR is little more than a notice of “I met with AP’s science write Seth Borenstein and we talked about it“. That’s not a science response to the issue, and to say it is, is just as much “fake news” and the press pablum they talk about. – Anthony
Communications expert explains how science should respond to fake news
BOSTON — The rise of fake news has dominated the world of politics since the last U.S. election cycle. But fake news is not at all new in the world of science, notes University of Wisconsin-Madison Life Sciences Communication Professor Dominique Brossard.
“Fake news about science has always existed,” she says. “What has changed now is social media and the potential to disseminate this kind of news much faster among social networks.”
Addressing scientists today (Feb. 18, 2017) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Brossard discussed the fake news phenomenon in the context of science and online social networks like Facebook and Twitter. She joined moderator Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press and speakers Julie Coiro of the University of Rhode Island and Dan Kahan of Yale Law School.
Fake news, Brossard says, is produced using false information, with the goal of sharing it as real news to influence people. However, “in the context of science, I think this is much murkier and unclear.”
She recalled an unpublished study she conducted while a graduate student at Cornell University in which she examined science coverage of the supermarket tabloid Weekly World News. The black and white magazine reported on “strange news,” like 30-pound newborns, giant insects and alien abductions. Most of it was made up. But some stories, Brossard says, were based on odd-but-true science. It was a way of enticing readers who were not always certain what was real and what was not.
“We’ve always had things that can be called inaccurate,” she says. “The problem in the science realm is deciding where is the line between bad science reporting and fake news.”
For instance, is a news story that says caffeine might cure cancer, based on a study of just 10 people, fake news or is the study just poorly reported?
Unlike other kinds of fake news, inaccurate science news often spreads through social networks because it sometimes offers hope, Brossard says. People will share stories that fit what they want to believe, like a new treatment might cure a loved one’s Alzheimer’s disease.
“Journalists are not all well-trained to assess the validity of a study,” she says. “They are trying to find the human interest and the hope — a headline like: ‘New study brings hope to families with Alzheimer’s.'”
Efforts like those of Facebook, which added an option to report fake news, are not going to solve the problem for science, Brossard says. “It may not be a fake story but just bad reporting. Maybe it’s not a great scientific study, although I bet if you read the study they mention the limitations.”
So, what is the answer?
Brossard offers three paths toward better science communication and less inaccuracy in science news.
“As scientists, we need to actually know what we’re doing with respect to communicating science and break the echo chambers as much as we can,” she says, explaining that social science research shows simply offering “more facts” to people will not change minds. In fact, it can cause people to double down on their beliefs. Rather, she says, scientists need to find common ground with others, including nonscientists.
As part of this, she suggests scientists need to take responsibility for communicating science by being willing to talk to and work with journalists, to help explain and contextualize their work.
“We need to train scientists themselves to talk about their results and scientists need to be out there,” she says. “If we don’t, the reporter is going to call someone else. It’s our responsibility to make sure fake news or bad reporting is not disseminating.”
Second, agencies and institutions must do a better job of what Brossard calls “quality or brand control.” She uses Coca-Cola as an example. The company monitors news around the world and flags any media in which it is mentioned, looks at related conversations taking place on social media and launches damage control whenever necessary. Institutions and agencies should be doing this with their science and act when studies are misinterpreted, she says, though there is currently no systematic way to do this.
Third, Google and other search engines should remove retracted studies from search results, Brossard says. For instance, Andrew Wakefield’s falsified and discredited study in 1998 fraudulently linking autism and vaccines is still available, though online it is marked as retracted. This does not always matter to the mother or father concerned about the health of their child.
“If I tell you that 87 percent of scientists believe there is no link because the evidence shows that, but then there is this one study, many parents will say: ‘I’m not going to take the risk. I’m going to believe that one,'” Brossard says. “It’s not that people don’t trust science, it’s that they are going to use science that fits their beliefs.”
While efforts like medical writer and journalism instructor Ivan Oransky’s blog Retraction Watch — which roots out retractions and cases of fraud among scientific publications — have been instrumental in bringing attention to inaccurate or false studies, Brossard says bad studies might still resurface and Retraction Watch can’t catch everything, although they now report between 500 and 600 retractions a year.
“Social media has played a big role,” Brossard says. “It’s a way for people that share a set of beliefs to be assured they’re not alone.”
Which is why, she says, it’s important to get science news right from the start.
“There is not a clear dichotomy between fake news and real news,” she says. “Scientists should engage in communicating their work and realize it’s not ‘us versus them, the public.’ They need to be aware of the consequences of what they say and take into account what we know about science communication. They shouldn’t shy away.”
###
No, as scientists, you need to actually be able to DO the SCIENCE and have the ANSWER come out RIGHT. FACTS are the ONLY things that change most peoples’ minds against belief.
We’re gonna CATCH YOU when YOU CAN’T DO it. And that’s all there fuggin is TO it.
Everything else is the back room deals and snitching people off to the law. We aren’t here to be sh*t on by people without consciences. If you can DO the SCIENCE and have WORKED DOING IT
you probably have something to say.
IF YOU HAVE NOT
then everything you say is going to wind up like those global warmers’ reputations. In the sewer.
Everything said by a journalist or anyone who writes or performs in media, should be taken with an ENORMOUS
grain of salt until you find out WHO PAYS their BILLS. THAT will explain EVERYTHING.
Does anyone else have the perception that warmists write as much about how to get their message out or how to defeat those that oppose them than they do about the climate?
The cure is giving people tools to recognize the key factors in quality and the understanding of uncertainty. Socially speaking though, people prefer listening to experts that make factual statements despite uncertainty.
You don`t fix the news, you teach people..
She missed a trick.
Before a paper has been reviewed, eg Gergis et al, the likes of the Guardian and the BBC trumpet the findings as news.
When papers like Gergis’ are withdrawn there is no correction.
Its all about getting a message across.
“While there’s always been tabloids that make up “alien abductions”, Bigfoot, HAARP, and the like – science has never had a need to bother responding to it. The one exception I know of is this study definitively showing the chemtrails nonsense to be just that.”
Well consider: to nearly all scientists climate skepticisms arguments are mostly no more reputable than those who believe in that catalogue.
Griff,
This is what I consider; Griff said something about what he imagines nearly all climate scientists make of arguments against CAGW. Sorry if that disappoints ; )
Billions mocking a dozen who say the sky is blue will not suddenly turn the sky purple with pink polka dots.
Lazy drive-by ad populem argument. Try again.
The “Fake News!” mantra has absolutely nothing to do with truth. The only point is to create a populace that only believes what the President says.
Dangerous days indeed.
I see no evidence that journalists are ready, willing, and able, to be educated.
Scientists need to take responsibility for being flat out wrong instead of trying to convince journalists that they are right by manipulating data.
I read on physicist’s estimate that 50% of published physics is wrong. If so, most of this article is unworkable and not-sensical. It’s a coin-flip.
Embarrasing article. The very beginning lists HAARP as the same as Bigfoot. HAARP is an actual project, Anthony. It exists and no one denies it. It’s function may be questioned, at least by conspiracists, but its existence is not in dispute. Bigfoot is pretty well considered imaginary.
Nobody has yet posted on this woman’s bona fides?