It seems to me that some contributors to this thread are being
naive about how journalism and news coverage influence public opinion.
There seems to be a consensus that people, in general, make up their minds
about things based on logic, understanding of facts, and reliable sources.
This may be true when people are considering issues with which they have
direct, personal experience, but there is plenty of evidence that other
factors are more important when people form opinions about public policy
issues. William Shirer, in his book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich*,
tells about the changes he observed after having left Nazi Germany shortly
after Hitler came to power (or maybe it was shortly before) and then
returning some years later (if I remember correctly) shortly before the war
broke out. In the meantime, the Nazis had taken over the newspapers and
radio stations and were able to dictate content. Shirer found that people
he knew well from previous visits, people whose integrity and intelligence
he trusted, had developed absurd, bizarre opinions with no relation to
facts.
What had happened? They had responded to the "information" they
were exposed to, which of course was trashy and one-sided. I'm sure most of
them didn't immediately embrace the new world view; their critical faculties
probably rejected it as being stupid and not corresponding with facts and
long-accepted beliefs. But gradually, over time, constant repetition with
no refutation and contrary opinions, wore down their intellectual faculties
and they adopted new views. This suggests that public opinion is won by
frequency and volume, not by facts and logic. It follows then that if we
want the public to believe that climate change is real, we should just keeps
saying it over and over, drowning out the opposing voices.
Consider a situation that you may have seen in your own life:
Suppose that in your neighborhood there have been a couple of home
invasions, perhaps involving robbery, rape, or murder, and that the stories
are widely played in the media. For a while people will make sure their
doors are locked, may accompany their children to the bus stop, and take
other common-sense or even nonsensical precautions. But then nothing bad
happens for a while. The criminal perpetrator is not caught, but the story
dies down because there is an earthquake somewhere, or a Hollywood star gets
involved in a scandal. After a while people become less careful about
locking their doors, etc. and lapse back into their former complacency. Has
there been any real change? Have overall crime statistics and the social
factors that lead to crime changed? No, probably not, although an
appropriately worded survey might show that people's perceptions of
neighborhood saftey have changed. But what HAS changed is the media input
that keeps fear stirred up. People can't be thinking about EVERYTHING all
the time, so now they're thinking about Charlie Sheen and tsunami victims
and nuclear-plant meltdown. They won't start thinking about crime again
until the next home invasion and the subsequent media coverage. I think
that none of us are immune to this psychology.
This frequency/volume mechanism may not work all the time for all
people, especially not for those who have been trained for may years to base
opinions on objective evidence, but maybe it just takes a little longer for
such people, a few hundred more repetitions. I have heard of studies
showing that medical workers, who know the rules of hygiene, are more
motivated to wash their hands after using the bathroom by catchy jingles
than they are by the scientific facts. After all, they learned the facts of
hygiene years ago, whereas the catchy jingle has become an on-going earworm,
nibbling at them constantly. Furthermore, people who form opinions based on
objective evidence in their area of expertise might be much less sceptical
when considering matters outside of their area. (Thus, a successful
physicist might also be a creationist.)
In summary, all this talk about communicating more CLEARLY may be
delusional, even if it is comforting to your ideals about human nature. Try
communicating LOUDER and MORE OFTEN. (The medium is not the message; the
NOISE is the message.)
Are you going to stick to your ideals, even when they are only
applicable a small percentage of the time, or are you going to go with
pragmatism and get the job done?
Martin M. Meiss
2011/4/10 David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com>
> Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business
> spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists
> have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by
> journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists.
>
> You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to
> think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis,
> you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to
> expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have
> blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones --
> or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a
> lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding.
>
> The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their
> independence in the name of, uh, accuracy.
>
> You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit
> from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't
> you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will
> never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source,
> but that is anathema to most of my colleagues.
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their
>>> stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue,
>>> reducing
>>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in
>>> silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an
>>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is
>>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the
>>> reporter
>>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot
>>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the
>>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree
>>> with Dave's point, but it's not my point.
>>>
>> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad
>> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that
>> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the
>> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a
>> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying
>> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different
>> actions in different circumstances.
>>
>> Jane Shevtsov
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com>
>>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
>>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces
>>>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons
>>>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the
>>>> same
>>>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I
>>>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their
>>>> approval
>>>> of a story I wrote involving them first.
>>>>
>>>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very
>>>> hard
>>>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by
>>>> running
>>>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy
>>>> of a
>>>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why --
>>>> it
>>>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our
>>>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an
>>>> independent
>>>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for
>>>> approval? We cannot.
>>>>
>>>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such
>>>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my
>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist
>>>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed
>>>> from
>>>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to
>>>> support
>>>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The
>>>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or
>>>> less
>>>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the
>>>> material
>>>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to
>>>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" targets
>>>> that
>>>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that
>>>> need to
>>>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our
>>>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to
>>>> suit
>>>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science
>>>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've
>>>> asked
>>>> to have their name taken off of the byline).
>>>>
>>>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries"
>>>> where
>>>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask
>>>> a
>>>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself
>>>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are
>>>> not
>>>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could
>>>> offer
>>>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such
>>>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know
>>>> what
>>>> to say.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can
>>>>> get
>>>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were
>>>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in
>>>>> presuming
>>>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be
>>>>> averted
>>>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the
>>>>> piece
>>>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ...
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
>>>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
>>>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
>>>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
>>>>
>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
>>>>
>>>> "No trespassing
>>>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
>
