Guaranteed to produce shoddy journalism

I usually don't listen to the NPR show On the Media. It seems to be one of those self-referential things -- reporting about reporting or journalism about journalism -- though that can be useful. But yesterday afternoon I went to a great concert in the northwestern suburbs and I figured I better stop at Plum Market and Whole Foods (snacking on their samples of cheese) while in the neighborhood. So it was about 7:00 by the time I headed home and wanted something to listen to. Fortunately, it was a topic I found interesting.

It was all about how the media gets sucked into reporting bogus stories. I found four of the seven segments of the show to be worth sharing.

The first segment is Sucked Into the Polar Vortex all about reporting of the bad weather over the last couple weeks. There is a tendency of lots of people (especially in the media) to pontificate on things they know little about. Andrew Rivkin, writer of the Dot Earth blog of the New York Times, has a caution sign he uses when faced with the Single Study Syndrome -- something trumpeted in the media whose underlying science is shaky at best. While it might produce a great moment of radio or television it gives the public reason to distrust what is being said. Rivkin closes by commenting on Snowstorm Hercules (the name given by the Weather Channel -- coincidence that a Hercules moving is coming out soon?). It wasn't strong enough, says Rivkin, to warrant a name. It was like saying you're getting over Sinus Infection Fred.

On to Bogus "Blue Monday". This is supposedly the first working Monday in January, declared to be the most depressing day of the year. Holidays are over and we're back to work and the tough slog until spring. The scientific evidence? There isn't any. The whole thing was made up. Yet Big Media now trumpets Blue Monday every year.

According to Dr. Ben Goldacre, writer of Bad Science blog, Blue Monday was created by a guy in the travel industry trying to prompt people to book vacations for next summer (or even the coming February). He came up with an equation to "prove" it.

Now lots of publicity companies ask scientists for such equations, such as an equation to verify which fashion model has the sexiest walk. The scientist is given the goal, such as which model is supposed to win, and defines parameters accordingly.

These PR companies know more notice is paid when they get a mention in a news story than in an advertisement. They also know the science writers and editors at most newspapers don't have a feel for science and can't tell good science from bad. They're also short of staff. Which means many of them don't have much journalistic integrity.

Journalists claim it is in fun -- if so, please flag it as such. Or they get a check from the PR company and don't care.

In Obamacare Horror Story Maggie Mahar, writer of Health Beat blog, tells about a newspaper article written in Fort Worth. She has read the actual Affordable Care Act law three times. Some things in the article didn't add up, so Mahar dug deeper. The writer of the article said she had only two days to write the story. While she found people with insurance horror stories she didn't have time to check details -- such as a couple of them were Tea Party members out to repeal Obamacare.

The constraints on the writer were almost guaranteed to produce shoddy journalism: Fewer reporters who are now overworked, lack of resources, lack of time to fact-check, a writer covering too many fields and without much knowledge of any of them, and being used to covering the politics (winners and losers here!), not the policy.

And finally, Edward Caudill, author of Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign Against Evolution, tells how modern media helps their cause. Creationists exploited a template that Media has for political stories -- there are two sides in conflict. And in such stories they know to be fair and tell both sides. But that elevates creationism to be as equally valid as evolution. Then Creationists rebranded their product as Intelligent Design, removing explicit references to religion and making it sound more scientific. That also gets it around the prohibition of establishing a national religion in their effort to get it into the national curriculum. Then they bundled it in with gay rights, abortion, and other Fundie causes and made it all a part of the GOP platform as part of a general cry for religious freedom against those liberal bullies.

I delved into the comments of this segment. One said this story is old. The debate as presented hides a much more interesting story of how the Intelligent Design issue is being debated within Fundie circles.

There's another aspect of all this. Stories like these explain why reporting on what is a healthy American diet is so contrary to what my nutritionist says it should be. I see how easy it is for processed food companies to make us believe their product is the healthy way to eat. And modern Media doesn't have the resources, the time, or the interest in discovering the truth.