Is anyone else getting fed up of awful "studies" with sensationalist media coverage?

[Kinglet]

I am starting to get really annoyed by the hundreds of sloppy and manipulated "studies" that get a lot of media coverage. The amount of "(insert random food that is popular here) causes CANCER!!!" "studies" are getting ridiculous. I am aware of the fact that some things are actually dangerous to your health, but studies like those don't prove anything because of awful mistakes and experiments which have been set up for a specific outcome. (Like using a strain of rats prone to cancer tomours for cancer frequency research.)

Media also takes a big part in this problem. Even many accurate and humble studies get ridiculously overblown clickbait titles and articles that were written for maximum popularity rather than information. But this also encourages so-called "scientists" to make more manipulated and inaccurate "studies".

What do you think about this?

[RainDreamer]

Stupid phone deleted my post when I fumbling around to edit my post...

*grumble*

Anyway, as a communication student, the dilemma is this, if you want to have food on the table, you have to attract attention anyway possible, as long as you don't get sued. It is a vicious cycle.

We need more critical readers to change the trend, since the higher up won't do a thing if people are still reading clickbait stuff and make money for them. The reality is, the content isn't as important as the number of views that you get, because those views are what you sell to the advertisers.

Furthermore, we are locked in this cursed trinity:

Quick, cheap, and quality. You can only have 2.

As news deliverers, we have to race against competitors, for every second we are behind another publication, that is another second a potential reader is reading theirs stuff instead of ours. News in the internet age also age fast. An 8-hours old news is considered ancient unless it is an on going event. "Quick" is something we HAVE to do if we want to stay relevant.

That leaves "cheap" and "quality". Well, they are not going to raise salary anytime soon lest it cut into profit. So obviously quality is what get shafted.

[tater]

The main problem is reporters.

It is usually called the "Gell-Mann effect," which is cited as an (apocryphal) story from Murray Gell-Mann. He was interviewed by a leading paper nationally about his work. He said he read the article, and the gist was utterly wrong. The reporter got it 180 degrees from reality. He then turned to another section, read the business or political news, and believed everything he read. The effect is that when you actually know a subject, you find that the news is very likely WRONG in the way it reports it, and get 10 people in different areas reading, and they will all notice what is wrong in their areas of interest.

The moral is that reporters basically don't have the first clue about most anything they report about. If they understood the science in question, they'd likely be doing the science, not writing news copy, so of course they will get it wrong. heck, if they could do math, they'd likely not have been journalism students.

[Dodgey]

If they understood the science in question, they'd likely be doing the science, not writing news copy, so of course they will get it wrong. heck, if they could do math, they'd likely not have been journalism students.

Pretty much, it's the same reason why scientists don't become politicians. It seems like the industries that could benefit the most from scientists are the industries that no one with any scientific literacy wants to go into.

[vger]

If they understood the science in question, they'd likely be doing the science, not writing news copy, so of course they will get it wrong.

This really isn't only about science though. The media does this with EVERYTHING, even things that are clearly in the realm of common sense. They make mountains out of molehills, but can't even be bothered to use material that remotely resembles a mountain.

[tater]

This really isn't only about science though. The media does this with EVERYTHING, even things that are clearly in the realm of common sense. They make mountains out of molehills, but can't even be bothered to use material that remotely resembles a mountain.

That was the point of the Gell-Mann effect. Anyone who actually knows the subject in question thinks the press is clueless about THAT subject, when they are in fact clueless about everything.

[RainDreamer]

Well, the mainstream media is made for the mass. You won't find anything that a lay person wouldn't understand there. It would alienate readers, and made your news less impactful if you write "scientists found possible correlation between one of 200+ types of cancer and [something]" instead of "THIS WILL KILL YOU!"

Also, a sad fact about news reporting now is that no one do fact check anymore. There is no time. Back when it is acceptable to have news today being reported on tomorrow paper, an article goes through many people checking it before it can be printed. The reporter will check whether the news they got makes sense first, then next the editors will verify the validity of the content, then if the news is important enough, the editor in chief will do a final pass, and at any point the article can be rejected if it is not up to standard.

Now? The reporter have an hour or so to write their article and post it online. No more verifying process, what the reporter wrote will likely go straight to the news post with minimal, if any, fact check, or heck, spell check. Editors now can only do a very cursory look over the swarm of articles they have, and very likely only see if the piece seems like news instead of just a block of filler text. They won't have time for in-depth analysis.

Disclaimer: this is mostly applied for mainstream media. Trade magazines and other specialized publications has more time before print and have reporters that are actually knowledgeable about the field.

[NuclearNut]

The problem with those studies is that those clickbait titles are the things that get readers, the things that rake in the money. You also must get it out ASAP, get it written well, and make it understandable to readers.

Every time I visit a news website and thy have a front page article sensationalizing a minor incident (minor corrosion and leaks in the PCL seem popular) at a nearby reactor that should not even get mention outside of some monthly safety report from the reactor company I bang my face against a wall. That wall is being replaced because a forehead sized dent appeared in it.

[ComradeWolfe]

A scholarly debate will attract a few dozen to a few hundred students. A circus will attract gawkers by the thousands. If your paycheck depended on how many people saw your work, which venue would yours most resemble?

[PB666]

A scholarly debate will attract a few dozen to a few hundred students. A circus will attract gawkers by the thousands. If your paycheck depended on how many people saw your work, which venue would yours most resemble?

Science in general occurs in tiny steps the public never sees, there is general little debate other than in the peer review process. The editor of a journal has alot of power, but ultimately any science can be oublished in some obscure or university journal in a foriegn language.

Scientist are leary of the big hypey stuff, people who hype thier work are often less productive, push the data or take credit for other peoples works. Thus scientist are basically conflict avoiders.

If its big and hypey, its probably not good science. Becareful of some of the food experts, there is a deep secret about food related health issues. Alot of it is controlled by our genetics, some of it is the consequence of childhood diseases, and other things you never hear about. The problem is that food sensitivities and associated risks might only affect a few percent of the population per sensitivity, but the risk in that population can be quite high.

Take one example - rhuematoid arthritis

Destruction of the synovial lining and juxta articular bone mass

Increased risk for type Ii diabetes

Increased risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke

Risk

Female 3x

DR shared epitope 4x

Smoking 5x

Periodontal disease 2.5x

Aggravating factors - diet high in animal fat, diet high in sugar, severe respiartory infections

Slowing effects - TNFa modulators, omega 3 fats, moderate exercise

What you see on TV, even PBS, its not this. The TV folk are not familiar with the sphere of the literature, often just part and the part they work on. And the treatments they suggest may only be effective in a small potion of the population. In RA The TNFa drugs are only effective in some people. There is an area of Africa where noone gets RA, the gene is present, but it is unclear why the disease is not present. RA howver is the second most studied autoimmune disease. Comparing twins raised together and apart for diseases like Type1 diabetes we also know what the env and genetic cummulaives are, and we know that the proportion of known risks are a tiny fraction of the total risk.

So the bottom line is that someone tells you that X causes Y, and frequently you look at the primary literature and X explains a 5% increase in Y. Or alternatively you might look at it like it that in a select group based upon some gene say 20% of the population X inreased the risk of disease by 25% and in the rest of the population it had almost no risk increase, or may have even decreased risk of Z.

[YNM]

I guess the problem is within the mass itself. If you have a social media account (I mostly use LINE) you'll see the same stuffed news over and over being shared by different people. And their posts are often what one can say "baiting", asking for like/share, which I (of course !) ignore, even sometimes on the basis that there's a large likeliness that someone else would "do it for me".

The same happens all over the .net - even this subforum now and then do that as well (mostly patent things though, that's where imagination is real).

[Mazon Del]

My personal hatred? Seeing any article on Quantum Teleportation / Entanglement. They ALWAYS make them seem like they figured out FTL comms, when they've done nothing of the sort, or even just further proved you cannot use those things for that purpose. Just sort of that silly instinct within me that wants to believe it is just a matter of time until we figure out how to make it do that anyway. >.<

[RainDreamer]

My personal hatred? Seeing any article on Quantum Teleportation / Entanglement.

We have a thing called quantum teleportation?

Didn't know that

[regex]

24/7 news culture. More media outlets, more media consumers, less vetting, a drive for constant content, bias-driven consumers. You need a big headline to grab clicks in that sort of environment.

[magnemoe]

24/7 news culture. More media outlets, more media consumers, less vetting, a drive for constant content, bias-driven consumers. You need a big headline to grab clicks in that sort of environment.

The harmful food of the week according to scientists predates the web. Standard filler in newspapers back before 1990.

Technology news overall before 2000 in newspapers was face palm experience. Today they can at least copy decent sources. 20 years ago you had few speciality reporters outside of sport in most newspapers.

[SciMan]

It seems that the rise of the internet has driven news sources into worthlessness.

Might as well give up and start calling them advertisement services, as that's all they're interested in providing anyways.

Of course, they can't call themselves that because then nobody would visit them. So they have to lie and make click-bait titles.

Advertisement is an arms race, because the advertisers are forced to lie to get attention for what they're selling, and nobody wants to listen.

The first company to invent a "click-bait title blocker" will sell millions of copies, or at least inspire the creation of many successful imitators.

Same thing happened with ad blockers, pop-up blockers, telemarketing, junk mail, etc.

I predict it will repeat itself for the forseeable future.

The best part of having an ad-blocker extension for your browser? Even if you fall for one of those click-bait titles, the people who made it get NOTHING.

I never turn off my ad blocker. Maybe if you wanted to make money, you'd do it the (more) honest way like the majority of the world is forced to.

PS. Sorry if this seems a bit vitriolic, but my hatred for advertisements has no bounds. I like to call it a "hype allergy". At best, I'll take a "wait and see" approach to anything that has a mountain of hype behind it, even if I was interested before the hype. At worst, I'll instantly hate anything to do with the thing that is being hyped.

[SargeRho]

Clickbait is probably the single most annoying Internet trend yet. They convey no information what so ever, and their only purpose is to attract as many clicks as possible. It's what you get when you combine sensationalism with shallowness and sleazy-salesmanship.

Sensationalist science articles are, I think, unethical journalism. They are a disservice to the public, and usually completely misrepresent the science.

----

The best part of having an ad-blocker extension for your browser? Even if you fall for one of those click-bait titles, the people who made it get NOTHING.

I never turn off my ad blocker. Maybe if you wanted to make money, you'd do it the (more) honest way like the majority of the world is forced to.

I disable my ad-blocker on sites that I want to support, as well as for certain youtube Channels that I also want to support, like TotalBiscuit and Sargon of Akkad. Content creation is just as honest of a job as any other, and takes a lot of time and effort to do properly.

Edited August 23, 2015 by SargeRho

[PB666]

My personal hatred? Seeing any article on Quantum Teleportation / Entanglement. They ALWAYS make them seem like they figured out FTL comms, when they've done nothing of the sort, or even just further proved you cannot use those things for that purpose. Just sort of that silly instinct within me that wants to believe it is just a matter of time until we figure out how to make it do that anyway. >.<

PBS did the same thing on thier program on Hubble. Journalist don't understand that it takes 3 or more studies by competing groups to create confidence and even then they sometimes get it wrong. They may even intentionally do this so that they can create an even bigger hype storm when someone comes along to prove them wrong. When I watch the news I get a strong sense that the media get great pleasure out of jerking their audiance back and forth. Anyway I stop watching american news most is from reddit which is really should be hipster science and the Beeb. For all the faukts of the British they do US news better than Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems that the rise of the internet has driven news sources into worthlessness.

Might as well give up and start calling them advertisement services, as that's all they're interested in providing anyways.

Of course, they can't call themselves that because then nobody would visit them. So they have to lie and make click-bait titles.

I wish I had done a study on Usenet posts back in the late eighties and then after Deja-Vu (google groups). Its clear that after the windows IE capable masses had access to online discussion groups that thing went south fast. I can tell you that the oldest participants in these forums gave up and created forums that are heavily moderated now. Many news sites that had comment sections are getting rid of them. Waste to much time moderating fools that learn they can post and dupe others into flame wars.

Reddit, just look at, its randomized chaos filtered into subreddits, the most deginerate of the groups are perhaps the best moderated. One could get a decent pH D thesis analyzing the governance and trends of posting behaviors on this forum alone.

[Duxwing]

@OP The publication of poorly-researched news is not new, ubiquitous, or even Internet-related. Poor journalists have sensationalized stories since public education and the printing press. Indeed, people have told and enjoyed sensational stories since time immemorial--eventually inventing fiction! The problem exists because of perverse incentives, extrinsic and intrinsic, to attract attention rather than write news. The best news outlets, among them the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, and BBC, painstakingly resist these incentives by hiring and carefully vetting their stories and journalists. Therefore, we should not lump their careful and serious copy, born of a long tradition of good writing, with that loathsome-yet-tempting mental junk-food.

-Duxwing

[SciMan]

True Duxwing, but the problem is that some of the formerly reliable sites for science news are now festering cesspools of journalistic laziness.

In other words, now previous performance is useless to predict future performance. So you're reduced to doing the journalist's job for them by fact checking their article (and removing the spin/bias from it). And from what I know of news, that's supposed to happen BEFORE publication.

Whatever happened to unbiased, objective reporting, anyways. Did it get harder all of a sudden? I don't think it did, people got lazy and want everything RIGHT NOW. Well, they got exactly what they asked for.

I've resorted to using Wikipedia to get my news. At least the culture there seems to be "remove bias, introduce as many facts and viewpoints as possible, and let the reader decide what's right". And I don't have to worry about seeing the opinions of anyone else who's read the same article.

Probably something to do with them not being a for-profit organization. If that changes, I expect they'll go down the tubes too. Because greed ruins literally everything.

[noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] News agencies aren't in it to find good news stories anymore. They're in it for the money, and they'll do anything to get it. Even if that means the stories don't have any truth or basis in the real world anymore.

[Duxwing]

True Duxwing, but the problem is that some of the formerly reliable sites for science news are now festering cesspools of journalistic laziness.

In other words, now previous performance is useless to predict future performance. So you're reduced to doing the journalist's job for them by fact checking their article (and removing the spin/bias from it). And from what I know of news, that's supposed to happen BEFORE publication.

Whatever happened to unbiased, objective reporting, anyways. Did it get harder all of a sudden? I don't think it did, people got lazy and want everything RIGHT NOW. Well, they got exactly what they asked for.

I've resorted to using Wikipedia to get my news. At least the culture there seems to be "remove bias, introduce as many facts and viewpoints as possible, and let the reader decide what's right". And I don't have to worry about seeing the opinions of anyone else who's read the same article.

Probably something to do with them not being a for-profit organization. If that changes, I expect they'll go down the tubes too. Because greed ruins literally everything.

[noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] News agencies aren't in it to find good news stories anymore. They're in it for the money, and they'll do anything to get it. Even if that means the stories don't have any truth or basis in the real world anymore.

To which news sources are you referring? NYT leans left and WSJ right, but I would not call either one or the other paper a "cesspool of journalistic laziness," and I perceive little bias in AJ or the BBC. Whereas ZeroHedge, Marxism.com, etc. obviously are biased.

-Duxwing

[Layereddiagram]

Clickbait titles are the WORST!

The thing I hate the most about them though, is that I always have deep down desire to click on them.

[legoclone09]

I hate clickbaits, but more annyoing are dumbed-down things about space. This one article I read used MILES, not Km or m for a height measurement. At least the mentioned the Delta IV...

[Superfluous J]

GETTING fed up? No. Not in the least.

[Just Jim]

Studies show that people who do studies need to be studied further...