
Why is the news media comfortable with lying about science? - mixmax
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/01/why-is-the-news-media-comfortable-with-lying-about-science.ars
======
Afton
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
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
I love the implication that the _Daily Mail_ isn't comfortable lying about
other subjects.

------
jakre
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.

------
chasingsparks
It's Not News, it's fark: <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.

------
pvg
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
"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
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.

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

~~~
daniel-cussen
I can't find a reputable source on this. Would you like to put a source forth?

~~~
jws
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...](http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf)

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._

------
robotrout
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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_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_A...](http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.99421.aspx)

[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140)

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
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/2...](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-
schedule-pr.pdf) 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.

~~~
tokenadult
<http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962>

~~~
robotrout
It's the same study guys. Same study mentioned four times now. It's got 288
people in it, and it's specific to MMR.

STUDY POPULATION: The 96 cases with childhood or atypical autism, aged 2 to
15, were included into the study group. Controls consisted of 192 children
individually matched to cases by year of birth, sex, and general
practitioners.

This downvoting crap is starting to piss me off. How about this?

echo "127.0.0.1 ycombinator.com" >> /etc/hosts

Fuck you guys. I'm going home.

