I do sometimes wonder what goes through the minds of some journalists as they prepare to pen a piece or even if they have any thoughts at all; perhaps everything is done on the journalistic equivalent of auto-pilot or cruise control. I have known too many good journalists to rubbish the entire profession but some of the dross that gets written makes me despair. It is easy to 'knock' views that you do not agree with, the political ramblings of the right wing Tory press or the simplistic 'chatter' of the 'low-brow' tabloids, being only the most obvious examples, but I find coverage of science and technology in even the most 'high-brow' of UK newspapers to have hit an all-time nadir. The basic fundamentals of good journalism, checking your facts, background research of primary sources, seems to been sacrificed on the altar of 'headline scoops' with little attention paid to the veracity of the story.
Perhaps this is merely a symptom of a much wider 'disease; in popular culture; the incessant rise in 'faction'. Facts, the truth, embroidered with enough fantasy to make it more interesting to the 'soundbite' generations but holding onto a minute trace of the 'truth' which might make it plausible.
I have a distinct fondness for what has become known as the 'scientific method'; the analyses of verifiable 'facts' about the world, 'facts' which can be repeated however many observations or experiments you undertake. and the subsequent formulation of theories which explain all of these facts, not just the ones that suit your theory. If someone else cannot repeat your observations under similar circumstances, then the word 'fact' and any hypotheses or inferences stemming from that 'fact' need to be abandoned. The primary source for observations about the world in most, if not all, scientifically literate countries is the learnèd journal; unless it has been published as a paper, and subjected to peer review by others working in the field, it is no more than idle speculation, gossip around the water-cooler.
It is therefore surprising to me, that few journalists working in the local or national press seem to be aware of this rich source of informed information or cannot be bothered to consult it, the pressure of deadlines notwithstanding. How many examples of so-called scientific 'reporting' rely solely on a press release, written by journalists with a 'product' to push and who long ago sold their soul to Mammon, and have no knowledge of the scientific paper that lies behind such press releases. It is as if the sceptical and enquiring mind, a prerequisite for any journalist, is switched off as soon as they acquire a post with a 'big' newspaper.
Aside from an obvious and an all too evident self interest in my own health, I worked for 'medical' related organisations for ten years. As a result, I read the BMJ and the Lancet, Nature and Science on a regular basis as far as I could understand them without an in-depth knowledge of monoclonal antibodies, epidemiology, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) but, if it seemed important, I would ask someone, more knowledgeable than I, if I did not understand something.
I was reminded of this over some of the headlines which were occasioned by a report, by a new body called 'Public Health England', which included a map showing areas of longevity, and by extension premature death (before the age of 75), for England. This was a basic epidemiological study based on statistics published by the UK's 'Office of National Statistics'. As a study, it pointed to, in a graphical manner, information which has long been well known, mainly how relative poverty and poor social conditions affect people's health. How did the media report it?
Early deaths: Regional
variations 'shocking' – Hunt. BBC News, June 11 2013; Councils
should look at banning fizzy drinks in schools, says Health Secretary. The
Daily Telegraph, June 11 2013; The
health gap: New mortality rates show how the north loses out to the south.
The Independent, June 11 2013; Steer
clear of Manchester to avoid an early grave: City has highest rate of people
who die prematurely. Daily Mail, June 11 2013; North
and South health divide: Chilling study reveals premature death is 'postcode
lottery'. Daily Mirror, June 11 2013; Early
Death Atlas Shows 'Shocking' Variations. Sky News, June 11 2013; Most
deaths in under-75s are potentially avoidable, says health body. The
Guardian, June 11 2013; Want
a long life? Live in the south of England. Metro, June 11 2013
Of all of these, surely only the Guardian comes out with its credibility intact. All of the others, worse is 'The Metro', a free 'rag', I hesitate to call it a newspaper, imply that is where you live that is the deciding factor as opposed to the social conditions, like poverty , poor housing, high unemployment, less than adequate nutrition, unhealthy habits like long-term smoking and drinking, that pertain to these areas, for a whole host of different reasons, that are the cause. The fact that 'poor' areas of the South-East of England, generally the most prosperous area, also have a relatively poor record bypasses the subs, who write the headlines. A headline, to some extent, defines how you will read an article that follows; your mind-set is already partly formed by the headline. Such potentially misleading strap lines do little to promote a sense of objective and largely factual reporting.
Unfortunately, this is all too common in 'health' reporting over the last ten years or so; sensation over facts, histrionics over informed and considered discussion. They say that the population gets the media it deserves. Well, here is one member of that population that has done absolutely nothing to deserve 'The Daily Mail', 'Fox News' or even the National Enquirer' or the 'Daily Sport'; stop cutting down the world's pine forests and burning fossil fuels only to turn them into 'garbage'!
No comments:
Post a Comment