6 ms·

Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science?

54 points by mixmax 17y ago

robotrout 17y ago
Staying away from the global cooling stuff for now, I'll comment on this. McCarthy has a long history of dismissing epidemiology, statistics, and all the other evidence-based tools we use to make public health decisions That's not really true. The problem is that there have been no studies made regarding vaccine and autism. McCarthy believes they are linked and asks to be shown a study proving they are not. (A study that takes populations of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and compares their autism rates) No studies are available, and years later, that remains true. Given that this is pretty easy to find out, I think this author has their own little axe to grind.
- tensor 17y ago
  It is indeed easy to find out. If you go to pubmed and search for vaccines and autism, you'll quickly find papers like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?itool=EntrezSyst... Which show that it has indeed been studied and that there is no known link. Rather, it is our detection capability that is improving. There is plenty of information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896907?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896907?itool=EntrezSyst... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=13 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237?itool=EntrezSyst... Jenny McCarthy is a well known anti-vaccine proponent who refuses to accept the huge number of studies in the area.
  - djcjr 17y ago
    Who funded the studies? Money skews the findings, I think we can all agree...
    - teej 17y ago
      There are multiple studies, all in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, that show that there is no link. In 2010, the peak of advancement in our species, you cannot get closer to fact than that.
- carbocation 17y ago
  We in the medical community find it unethical to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled trials when a preponderance of evidence already favors treatment (or nontreatment). Vaccines provide a clear benefit to society; the epidemiology does not suggest that vaccines are linked to autism. There is no clinical equipoise here.
  - vtnext 17y ago
    This is why the parents of affected kids don't trust the medical community to address their concerns. They see the impact immediately after the kids get vaccines, but your mind is made up unfortunately.
    - carbocation 17y ago
      Someone comes to me without any credible evidence and states "I think statins cause cancer. Let us randomize people with high LDL to statins or placebo." I will reject this study, not because my mind is "made up" and I am stubborn, but because the prior probability is low (due to lack of credible evidence) that statins truly lead to an excess of cancer, whereas the evidence supporting the use of statins to reduce death in those with high LDL is of gargantuan proportions. So while I am sorry that we as a medical community have not succeeded in making it clear why no randomized trial should be conducted for vaccines given the current evidence, I reject the assertion that this is simply because "my mind is made up."
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      There's plenty of parents of kids with autism who accept the science and e.g. get their younger kids vaccinated so it can't be as obvious a link as you'd suggest.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  The problem is that there have been no studies made regarding vaccine and autism...(A study that takes populations of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and compares their autism rates) No studies are available, and years later, that remains true. Simply false. Here are studies which compare children given MMR to control children given no MMR vaccines. Both find no statistically significant correlation between MMR vaccine and autism: http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.99421.aspx http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_A... http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone... There are also temporal studies comparing autism rates over time after the reduction/removal of thimerosal from vaccines (disproving a narrower hypothesis, that thimerosal causes autism): Hviid A, M Stellfeld, J. Wohlfahrt, and M Melbye (2003). Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. JAMA 290:1763-1766. Madsen KM, MB Lauritsen, CB Pedersen, P Thorsen, AM Plesner, PH Andersen, PB Mortensen (2003). Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data. Pediatrics 112:604-6. Fombonne E, R Zakarian, A Bennett, L Meng, D. McLean-Heywood (2006). Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations. Pediatrics 118:e139-50. Fombonne E (2008). Thimerosal disappears but autism remains. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 65: 15-6.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    At the risk of hemoraging more karma, let me make the following observations. 1) The MMR study consists of 288 children, 192 of which were hand-picked to match 96 autistic children. It strikes me that for a condition that is diagnosed in 1 out of 120 children, a population of 300 children is a bit sparse. Is that blasphemy? 2) The MMR study (which the other high karma poster is also quoting, it's the same study) is, after all, an MMR study. That means that of the 30 or so shots http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2... that a child is forced to undergo in the US by age 6, the Measles-Mumps-Rubella shot has been shown apparently (with a sample size of 288 kids) not to correlate with autism. I'm not sure why MMR was singled out, but for many of us, it's not any one vaccine that's the issue, nor is it thimerosal (although I'm glad it's out of there), it's the sheer number of them and how fast they are imposed on young bodies. Many more of them, I may add, than when you were a kid. I feel that you are not going to be swayed from your position that all is well in vaccination land. I wonder if you have children. When you have a new son (boys are diagnosed at a rate of 1 in 70) we'll see if you aren't more willing to be critical of one or two studies that are quoted so often it seems like there are 50. My original point still stands. Fund a study of non-vaccinated children. They exist. I have two of them. Compare their autism rate against the general population. Use a sample size that is actually meaningful, and you'll shut up Jenny McCarthy, and you'll let me sleep easier as well.
Afton 17y ago
In fact, this really isn't restricted to science journalism. If you talk to people working with prostitutes, they'll tell you that journalists show up looking for quotes to fit into their already determined story, and if you aren't forthcoming with appropriate quotes, they will just make them up. I was friends with many journalism students at uni, and it deeply broke my trust in journalism.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  When axod and I worked at our first startup, we would periodically get journalists coming into the office to film a short piece on the company. They always wanted us to put "something cool" on our computer screens (invariably lots of fast scrolling text "like in The Matrix"), and pretend like we were reading and analyzing it. I've always been rather skeptical of journalism since.
bobbyi 17y ago
I love the implication that the Daily Mail isn't comfortable lying about other subjects.
pvg 17y ago
The examples given hardly warrant the breathless title. Neither the Daily Mail (a UK tabloid) nor Fox News (a conservative US news network) have much of a record of objectivity and if they're comfortable with distortion, it's certainly not just about science. The ABC piece employs the typical journalistic practice of presenting both sides of the issue which, while it can be argued gives undue legitimacy to wackos like Jenny McCarthy, is a very long way from 'lying'.
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  "Both sides" implies a binary black-and-white issue. Much of science isn't, especially medicine, weather and social issues. Somewhere somebody has indoctrinated us into accepting "both sides" as complete coverage. Usually it amounts to presenting extravagant claims by polarized spokespersons.
  - pvg 17y ago
    It doesn't really imply a black-and-white issue, but it doesn't matter what it implies - it may be lazy or lousy journalism but it's not lying. There is plenty of room for insightful commentary on mainstream journalism, I don't think hyperventilating about how the news media is 'comfortable with lying about science' qualifies, though.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    A lot of issues aren't binary. News outlets are often sloppy reporting on any remotely complex issue.
  - dspeyer 17y ago
    It's very much a recurring habit of media, though, to take two sides, present them equally and call in "balanced". Depending on the issue and the sides picked, it can sometimes work, or it can legitimize nutcases, exclude a middle, ignore one end of a debate, or flatten a complex issue to one dimension.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
FOX News actually went to court to defend its right to lie in a newscast.
- daniel-cussen 17y ago
  I can't find a reputable source on this. Would you like to put a source forth?
  - twopoint718 17y ago
    The case was: NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant, v. JANE AKRE, Appellee. The source (that I found) is LexisNexis' compilation: "FL Courts of Appeal Cases from 1957"
  - jws 17y ago
    There are dozens of sources where you can read about this on the internet. Without exception the ones I looked at were of the sort of axegrinding, hissy fitting people that make me distrust their facts. I did however manage to find the actual opinion from the court is available. The opinion can be read at http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003... The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 3 and finishes on the top of page 4 is the meat. While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.
- 17y ago
chasingsparks 17y ago
It's Not News, it's fark: http://www.fark.com/2007/book/ http://www.fark.com/2007/book/ Not like the book said anything original, but it has some truly hilarious examples taken from years for following silly stories.
jakre 17y ago
You all were quoting my court case, fox did argue that technically lying is not a violation of any law rule or regulation fo the FCC. And in order to file a whistleblower case in Florida, you have to violate a law, rule or regulation. see foxbghsuit.com As to the science question- it is possible journalists don't fully appreciate the language of science whicih is quite precise. Journalists are trying to speak to a wide audience, that may account for some of the disparity.

54 points by mixmax 17y ago

Staying away from the global cooling stuff for now, I'll comment on this. McCarthy has a long history of dismissing epidemiology, statistics, and all the other evidence-based tools we use to make public health decisions That's not really true. The problem is that there have been no studies made regarding vaccine and autism. McCarthy believes they are linked and asks to be shown a study proving they are not. (A study that takes populations of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and compares their autism rates) No studies are available, and years later, that remains true. Given that this is pretty easy to find out, I think this author has their own little axe to grind.

tensor 17y ago
It is indeed easy to find out. If you go to pubmed and search for vaccines and autism, you'll quickly find papers like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?itool=EntrezSyst... Which show that it has indeed been studied and that there is no known link. Rather, it is our detection capability that is improving. There is plenty of information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896907?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896907?itool=EntrezSyst... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=13 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237?itool=EntrezSyst... Jenny McCarthy is a well known anti-vaccine proponent who refuses to accept the huge number of studies in the area.
- djcjr 17y ago
  Who funded the studies? Money skews the findings, I think we can all agree...
  - teej 17y ago
    There are multiple studies, all in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, that show that there is no link. In 2010, the peak of advancement in our species, you cannot get closer to fact than that.
carbocation 17y ago
We in the medical community find it unethical to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled trials when a preponderance of evidence already favors treatment (or nontreatment). Vaccines provide a clear benefit to society; the epidemiology does not suggest that vaccines are linked to autism. There is no clinical equipoise here.
- vtnext 17y ago
  This is why the parents of affected kids don't trust the medical community to address their concerns. They see the impact immediately after the kids get vaccines, but your mind is made up unfortunately.
  - carbocation 17y ago
    Someone comes to me without any credible evidence and states "I think statins cause cancer. Let us randomize people with high LDL to statins or placebo." I will reject this study, not because my mind is "made up" and I am stubborn, but because the prior probability is low (due to lack of credible evidence) that statins truly lead to an excess of cancer, whereas the evidence supporting the use of statins to reduce death in those with high LDL is of gargantuan proportions. So while I am sorry that we as a medical community have not succeeded in making it clear why no randomized trial should be conducted for vaccines given the current evidence, I reject the assertion that this is simply because "my mind is made up."
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    There's plenty of parents of kids with autism who accept the science and e.g. get their younger kids vaccinated so it can't be as obvious a link as you'd suggest.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
The problem is that there have been no studies made regarding vaccine and autism...(A study that takes populations of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and compares their autism rates) No studies are available, and years later, that remains true. Simply false. Here are studies which compare children given MMR to control children given no MMR vaccines. Both find no statistically significant correlation between MMR vaccine and autism: http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.99421.aspx http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_A... http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone... There are also temporal studies comparing autism rates over time after the reduction/removal of thimerosal from vaccines (disproving a narrower hypothesis, that thimerosal causes autism): Hviid A, M Stellfeld, J. Wohlfahrt, and M Melbye (2003). Association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. JAMA 290:1763-1766. Madsen KM, MB Lauritsen, CB Pedersen, P Thorsen, AM Plesner, PH Andersen, PB Mortensen (2003). Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data. Pediatrics 112:604-6. Fombonne E, R Zakarian, A Bennett, L Meng, D. McLean-Heywood (2006). Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations. Pediatrics 118:e139-50. Fombonne E (2008). Thimerosal disappears but autism remains. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 65: 15-6.
- robotrout 17y ago
  At the risk of hemoraging more karma, let me make the following observations. 1) The MMR study consists of 288 children, 192 of which were hand-picked to match 96 autistic children. It strikes me that for a condition that is diagnosed in 1 out of 120 children, a population of 300 children is a bit sparse. Is that blasphemy? 2) The MMR study (which the other high karma poster is also quoting, it's the same study) is, after all, an MMR study. That means that of the 30 or so shots http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2... that a child is forced to undergo in the US by age 6, the Measles-Mumps-Rubella shot has been shown apparently (with a sample size of 288 kids) not to correlate with autism. I'm not sure why MMR was singled out, but for many of us, it's not any one vaccine that's the issue, nor is it thimerosal (although I'm glad it's out of there), it's the sheer number of them and how fast they are imposed on young bodies. Many more of them, I may add, than when you were a kid. I feel that you are not going to be swayed from your position that all is well in vaccination land. I wonder if you have children. When you have a new son (boys are diagnosed at a rate of 1 in 70) we'll see if you aren't more willing to be critical of one or two studies that are quoted so often it seems like there are 50. My original point still stands. Fund a study of non-vaccinated children. They exist. I have two of them. Compare their autism rate against the general population. Use a sample size that is actually meaningful, and you'll shut up Jenny McCarthy, and you'll let me sleep easier as well.

Afton 17y ago

In fact, this really isn't restricted to science journalism. If you talk to people working with prostitutes, they'll tell you that journalists show up looking for quotes to fit into their already determined story, and if you aren't forthcoming with appropriate quotes, they will just make them up. I was friends with many journalism students at uni, and it deeply broke my trust in journalism.

abstractbill 17y ago
When axod and I worked at our first startup, we would periodically get journalists coming into the office to film a short piece on the company. They always wanted us to put "something cool" on our computer screens (invariably lots of fast scrolling text "like in The Matrix"), and pretend like we were reading and analyzing it. I've always been rather skeptical of journalism since.

bobbyi 17y ago

I love the implication that the Daily Mail isn't comfortable lying about other subjects.

pvg 17y ago

The examples given hardly warrant the breathless title. Neither the Daily Mail (a UK tabloid) nor Fox News (a conservative US news network) have much of a record of objectivity and if they're comfortable with distortion, it's certainly not just about science. The ABC piece employs the typical journalistic practice of presenting both sides of the issue which, while it can be argued gives undue legitimacy to wackos like Jenny McCarthy, is a very long way from 'lying'.

JoeAltmaier 17y ago
"Both sides" implies a binary black-and-white issue. Much of science isn't, especially medicine, weather and social issues. Somewhere somebody has indoctrinated us into accepting "both sides" as complete coverage. Usually it amounts to presenting extravagant claims by polarized spokespersons.
- pvg 17y ago
  It doesn't really imply a black-and-white issue, but it doesn't matter what it implies - it may be lazy or lousy journalism but it's not lying. There is plenty of room for insightful commentary on mainstream journalism, I don't think hyperventilating about how the news media is 'comfortable with lying about science' qualifies, though.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  A lot of issues aren't binary. News outlets are often sloppy reporting on any remotely complex issue.
- dspeyer 17y ago
  It's very much a recurring habit of media, though, to take two sides, present them equally and call in "balanced". Depending on the issue and the sides picked, it can sometimes work, or it can legitimize nutcases, exclude a middle, ignore one end of a debate, or flatten a complex issue to one dimension.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

FOX News actually went to court to defend its right to lie in a newscast.

daniel-cussen 17y ago
I can't find a reputable source on this. Would you like to put a source forth?
- twopoint718 17y ago
  The case was: NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant, v. JANE AKRE, Appellee. The source (that I found) is LexisNexis' compilation: "FL Courts of Appeal Cases from 1957"
- jws 17y ago
  There are dozens of sources where you can read about this on the internet. Without exception the ones I looked at were of the sort of axegrinding, hissy fitting people that make me distrust their facts. I did however manage to find the actual opinion from the court is available. The opinion can be read at http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003... The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 3 and finishes on the top of page 4 is the meat. While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.
17y ago

chasingsparks 17y ago

It's Not News, it's fark: http://www.fark.com/2007/book/ http://www.fark.com/2007/book/ Not like the book said anything original, but it has some truly hilarious examples taken from years for following silly stories.

jakre 17y ago

You all were quoting my court case, fox did argue that technically lying is not a violation of any law rule or regulation fo the FCC. And in order to file a whistleblower case in Florida, you have to violate a law, rule or regulation. see foxbghsuit.com As to the science question- it is possible journalists don't fully appreciate the language of science whicih is quite precise. Journalists are trying to speak to a wide audience, that may account for some of the disparity.