"Fair and Balanced" (Issue Revisited)

Oh boy. I have been struggling with this journalistic idea of fairness vs. balance.  As I suggested in my last blog post, I value fair reporting over balanced reporting.  There are just some issues that don't need a balanced report (ie, global warming or HIV-AIDs association) because of the overwhelming and majority evidence.  The motto Fox News anchors claims to live and report by is "fair and balanced".  However, a study which aimed to "isolate the effects of each type of news source" reports that those who view Fox News regularly are actually less informed on current events than those who do not watch news at all.  A Fox News subscriber would be expected to answer 1.04/5 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22/5 for those who did not watch news.  Subscribers of media outlets such as NPR (1.51/5 questions answered correctly) and the Daily Show (1.42/5 questioned answered correctly) much out-performed this "fair & balanced" news source.  This makes me wonder what the problem is (beyond the worrisome fact that it is expected most people can only answer less than 2 out of 5 questions current event questions correctly).  Is the problem fair & balanced news or the fact that Fox News does not present fair & balanced news?  Or is it something else?

 vs 

I have a hard time believing actual fair and balanced reporting would lead to the results of the study.  And since I myself am not an advocate for Fox News, the problem probably lies in the fact that Fox News does not present fair and balanced news.  However, I think it may be slightly unfair to say that's the case for only Fox News - no media outlets are completely fair and balanced.  Some do a better job than others, but media outlets are biased and severely affected by political and economic concerns.  They generally report information in a way that appeals the majority of people in that demographic.  Media outlets don't want to report things that the viewers will vehemently disagree with and at the same time, viewers don't want to listen to media sources that are not in line with their ideals.  We must accept the fact that these media outlets' survival is based on their viewership and how much influence they can create.  Essentially, certain media outlets appeal to certain people and that's what you end up supporting.  I don't watch Fox News because I don't agree with a lot of the views Fox News presents whereas I do find myself more inclined to and learning from NPR.  Fox News may be bad at presenting "fair & balanced" news but as far as Fox News viewers' current event literacy goes, it's not completely Fox News' fault - it's partly the viewer's own fault and that's just something we must accept. 

Balance vs. Fairness

I was always of the opinion that a good news article was one that had a point of view but at the same time, showed balance and presented both sides of the story so the reader could truly reflect on the issue at hand.  Chris Mooney, who wrote an article about the decline of science of in the news (which can be found here) said, "“Then there's the problem of "balance"--the idea that reporters must give roughly equal space to two different "sides" of a controversy. When applied to science, especially in politicized areas, this media norm becomes extremely problematic. Should journalists really grant equal time to the small band of scientists who deny the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS when the vast majority of researchers accept the connection between the two? Should they split column space between the few remaining global warming "skeptics" and scientific experts who affirm the phenomenon's human causation? Again, experienced science journalists will know best how to cover such stories and will be aware of the scientific community's very justifiable abhorrence or of unthinking "balance".  His piece and the discussions we've been having in class have made me reevaluate my view of balance as something necessary for scientific writing. 
I'm the type of person who, when presented with two differing views, will go do more research on that subject and try to get to the bottom of what I believe. Now that we know how little people truly spend on scientific literacy, I guess it's a little naive of me to think other people do the same.  Furthermore, if people do do the same, they may only research the side they instinctively connect with or believe which will reinforce misinformation.  It's a very dangerous fine line to tread.  
Dr. Edwards brought up a distinction that has shaped my new view - there is a difference between being balanced and being fair. I no longer believe it is necessary for science writers to present a balanced story when the majority of scientists and overwhelming scientific evidence supports one side; rather, I believe it necessary for science writers to be fair. 
Science writers have a lot to juggle already.  To be effective, their writing has to be novel, interesting, understandable, relevant and have impact in a very little space.  It would make their task even more difficult to present a balance story when one side of the story is largely irrelevant and only supported by a "small band of scientists" or skeptics. That being said, I don't think information that conflicts with the majority science should be completely dismissed.  Retractions in science occur often and there have been times where the majority belief has been replaced for a minority belief (the earth IS a sphere, not flat).  To be fair, it's still important to mention the conflict, no matter how the conflicting thought is.  It doesn't have to take much space or be presented with facts/evidence/data.  It could just be said "Despite overwhelming evidence of the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, there are still a minority that deny it."  There's a point of view, there's support for the particular point of view, and conflict is presented so there's also something that gets people thinking. People may get curious, wonder why, and learn more about HIV and AIDs leading to an increase in scientific literacy. Boom. That's it. 

Those Scientist People

I google searched "what does a scientist look like" and the first image that came up was this mad scientist type looking guy:

And this is what my friend, Julia Glauberman, a hisotry major drew as what she imagines when she thinks of a scientist:

I would admit that up until recently, I would also picture a similar, less crazy version of the first picture when I thought of a scientist - like the second picture, more Bill Nye the Science Guy. But I'm slowly realizing that I myself am a scientist because science is not bound to a degree. While I do think having a degree or multiple degrees in a scientific field makes a person more qualified, you don't need them to be a scientist.  I started thinking and referring to myself as a scientist after I became a fellow for the Center for Science and the Common Good and other people/my professors started grouping me into the term.  At first it was really odd for me to hear because it's not the first thing I would describe myself as.  The more I thought about it, however, if I'm not a scientist, what am I?

I am a scientist, albeit not the most qualified one, and I'm surrounded by my peers and professors at school who are also scientists with varying qualifications. I no longer imagine the stereotypical traditional and incorrect imagine of a scientist shown above because scientists aren't mysterious, pensive and old white men that are slogging away in a lab.  Scientists can young, old, male, female, ethnically diverse,  and are not bound to a lab full of chemicals.  Scientists are human just like everyone else.  All the scientists I know have families, enjoy watching movies and eating good food, and certainly do not talk about science all the time - it is important for people to know this.  It is time to change the stereotype of what a scientist looks like because this misinformed image of a scientist contributes to the intimidation and mistrust people have.  mistrust is certainly partly due to the fact that science has multiple sides of the story Scientific literacy is more important than ever and it's sad that people would prefer to listen to sweet mom Jenny McCarthy on autism over a much more qualified scientist.  

It is important for people to overcome the misconceptions they have by educating themselves but it is also the responsibility of scientists to make a more positive impact - there needs to be a change in scientific personality.  Scientists need to be accessible, regular people who can communicate effectively in an interesting way. I've never walked about of a complicated science lecture saying, "Wow, that was so impressive because it was so complicated and sounded so important that I had no idea what he/she was saying!"  It impresses me far more when anyone is able to explain their work to someone who does not have any background knowledge on it. 

Science writers play a huge role in this and can help bridge the disconnect between the public and science/scientists. I find it to be important to reflect the personality of what is being written about. The most interesting and effective science articles are the ones that not only identify why the science is important for the public but throw in personal stories or something humorous for scientists to connect with the readers on an easier/more personal level because, after all, scientists actually look like this: http://lookslikescience.tumblr.com/ 

Designer Purses and Truthiness

In 2005, "truthiness" was selected as The American Dialect's society's Word of the year and in 2006, it was Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year.  The word was coined by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report's segment The Word.  Apparently I haven't been keeping up with the words of the year because I had never heard of the term before I saw that video.  Truthiness is characterizing a "truth" based on intuition because it feels "right" without regarding facts and evidence.  Essentially, it is following one's "gut feeling".  I've certainly read many accounts of people experiencing "gut feelings" that have lead them to do certain things or make certain decisions.  Spouses accuse their significant other of cheating without any evidence - their gut tells them so and a lot of the time, they are correct!  I've experienced those gut feelings myself but I believe there is an extent to which I can rely on truthiness to make decisions.  For example, my gut give me great vibes when I am looking at (okay, drooling over) designer handbags.  My gut tells me "oh you deserve it, Zeba! What if you never get a chance to buy that gorgeous (and very expensive) purse again?"  And then I have to force myself to remember the facts. I have to remind myself that no, I should not purchase a $500 purse. My brain tells me it is excessive, I still have more essential things to shop for, and I should check the outlet store.  As Colbert says, my brain is "all fact and no heart".
Truthiness can sometimes lead in the right direction and other times, it can lead to destruction.  Is it responsible to think and act in a manner that is truthy? Should truthiness be accepted in science?  In my opinion, there needs to be a balance.  After all, scientific experiments are conducted based on an intuitive hunch and hypothesis.  There is room for good intuition in the scientific world.  However, everyone's perspective are unique - there is bias, emotional reactions, past experiences, and several other factors that influence an individual's decision making and cause us all to see things in different ways.  Truthiness is inevitable.  Due to this, there needs to be a standard to level the playing field.  This is where facts, evidence, and scientifically sound data comes in.  Everyone's truthiness will be different and it should be evaluated against the facts and evidence found by science to determine which course of action to take.
Now, when it comes to science writers, is there a place for truthiness?  If done in a controlled and tasteful manner, I think it is possible to write from both the brain and the heart/gut.  It is, essentially, a writing style and science journalism needs style (as evident by the drastic decline in science writing).  Science writers must report the facts and should also be able to incorporate their perspective.  Reading something full of facts is not as compelling as reading something with a sense of style. However, it is extremely important that the facts and science writer's perspective are distinguished with utmost clarity.  There should be merit, not misinformation - it's a deceivingly fine line.  The reader should be able to grasp the scientific concept of the writing and be stimulated to think about it further.  Science writers are still ultimately writers and opinionated people.  Just like everyone else, they are entitled to their truthiness.  If the science writer wants to write purely from his or her gut without factual evidence, it is no longer science journalism and that type of writing should be presented in opinion blogs/other outlets. Truthiness is certainly spreading.  People become narrow-minded and grounded in their perspective, unfortunately. But, if only truthiness was presented in our media outlets, anybody could make any decision and do anything because they felt it was right.  There would be no standards and society needs standards. There is a place for truthiness in our world, but it will never be a substitute for truth.