On bad science reporting.

[randomness]

(A followup to a recent conversation with cerridwynn and bloodstones.)

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/21/2:

WGary Schwitzer used to be a journalist, but now he has turned to quantitative analyses of journalism, and this month he published an analysis of 500 health articles from mainstream media in the US. The results were dismal. Only 35% of stories were rated satisfactory for whether the journalist had "discussed the study methodology and the quality of the evidence": because in the media, as you will have noticed, science is about absolute truth statements from arbitrary authority figures in white coats, rather than clear descriptions of studies and the reasons why people draw conclusions from them.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

The existence of this article makes me happy, even though its necessity dismays me.

[frotz.livejournal.com]

I am surprised and now wonder about his methodology and standards, as calling even one out of three samples of scientific reporting "satisfactory" seems like a vast overstatement, with health reporting being one of the worst offenders. Either that or I'm reading the wrong papers!

[emilymorgan.livejournal.com]

so true!!

I don't read neuro coverage anymore, because that's the one area where I know enough to know how problematic the articles are.