Monday, March 06, 2006
Oh, Gee You Think?
A report by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), an independent research group, has accused the UK media of sensationalising science.Quick! What's most troubling here? (Hint: it's not bad media reporting about science, that probably happened the first time a guy lit a fire (the media figured it was magic.)
It says irresponsible reporting can undermine public confidence in science and government, and on issues like vaccination may even cost lives.
[...]
The pamphlet, Science, Risk and the Media: Do the front pages reflect reality?, was based on a meeting by experts at the three main political party conferences, last year.
They considered how policymakers can better engage with the public on scientific and technological issues.
"The public's inherent mistrust of government and its motives is exacerbated by the media's sensationalist treatment of scientific stories," said Ann Rossiter, Director of the SMF.
Nope, the problem is the linkage of "science and government." The way this article is written, science is nothing more that the "proof" behind policy. This is problematic in oh so many ways.
Science should not of necessity lead to policy and more importantly, science subject to policy loses the very objectivity that grants it its authority to begin with.
Frankly, the reason there is a public perception problem with science has less to do with media and a whole lot more to do with the linkage just described, because its the linkage, not the reporting, that robs science of its credibility.
I don't care what you are doing, the company you keep and who pays the bills matters a great deal in terms of credibility.
Related Tags: science, policy, government, credibility
