Pharyngula::Lazy anti-evolution reporting

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Lazy anti-evolution reporting

PZ Myers • 52 Comments (last page)

Here's the problem with the media.

As was brought to my attention in the comments, CBS news has an article on the so-called evolution debate in Kansas. They are running a sidebar that is simply propaganda straight from the Discovery Institute, titled "What Some Students Are Asking Their Biology Teachers". It's ripped straight from the pages of Wells' terrible, incompetently-written book, Icons of Evolution, and it's presented as if these are serious questions that are troubling biologists.

They aren't.

They are nothing but tired old innuendo from creationists. Did the reporter ever think to, say, call up a biologist and ask her if there were answers to these questions? How about the National Center for Science Education? These are exactly the sort of things that the NCSE is geared up to address…they even have a resource prepared with short, media-friendly answers to each one of Wells' ten questions. Or, if the telephone is too terrifying, try googling talk.origins—they have a longer, more thorough demolition of Wells' case.

What is particularly ironic is that one of the points that the writer is making is that teachers face the difficulty of "learning to handle well-organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory". I think reporters need to learn the same thing.

I have a suggestion to all journalists. When a dishonest institution like the Discovery Institute mails you a press release full of assertions and insisting that there are profound questions that must be answered, don't accept it at face value. If you're planning to run it, at least call up a scientific organization like the NCSE or a local scientist and ask if their claims about biology have any reasonable foundation in fact. You might be surprised at how detached from reality they are.

I have a question for any journalists who might read this, too. What was the author of that article thinking? Why would a writer think a pile of crap from some grossly biased and unqualified organization like the Discovery Institute would be a useful addition to an article?

BG made an excellent point in the comments: complain to the source. Here's a link to the CBS feedback form. Everyone write in and tell them to quit swallowing the lies of the Discovery Institute, and point them to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2242/10I3SPhE/

Comments:

#23811: — 05/03 at 12:34 PM
They do have a "Contact Us" Thing where you can leave commnets

#23812: — 05/03 at 12:36 PM
Sorry,
I meant to hit preview not submit. Anyway, perhaps a bunch us us could leave comments asking why they are peddeling Di propaganda.

#23814: — 05/03 at 12:41 PM
They at least list the source and note that:

"Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:..."

But you'd think a link to the NCSE rebuttal! Note exactly heavy lifting!

#23816: craig — 05/03 at 12:45 PM
That's why the DI is successful. They are (or have) a PR firm. You have to remember that virtually anything you read in the paper that is not hard news is generated by a PR firm.

There was a discussion of this on slashdot recently, but I couldn't find it to link to... but anyway - if you suddenly start seeing articles about how "casual friday is over, suits are back in!" you can bet its because Men's Warehouse has their PR firm working hard to generate that.

I used to do design for a little free weekly Pennysaver and a print shop, and even we got swamped each week with these press releases, because they know that there are understaffed and lazy papers that will print anything that seems halfway interesting just to fill space.

That's why the sidebar is straight DI propaganda - you can be it came that way from the press release.

#23818: Thomas Wilburn — 05/03 at 12:57 PM
Craig is absolutely right. The terrible power of the press release works because reporters are either too lazy or too harried to do anything other than recant the press release. I've even been guilty of this myself at a small local paper--although in my defense, I was working freelance in addition to a full-time job instead of being a full-time reporter. In my opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist, one for whom writing pays the bills, to not follow up with opposing sources or consult an expert.

#23819: ~DS~ — 05/03 at 12:59 PM
Just FYI-I couldn't get the second page of that CSM article, just a flippin pop-up telling me how wonderful Wal-mart is.

#23821: — 05/03 at 01:06 PM
There's a feedback link on CBS.com. Wingnut radio producers are organized and expend much time and effort providing their listening audiences with contact numbers anytime they see something that rubs against their grain. Dr. Dobson once boasted how his program caused a telephonic brown out on capitol hill after he urged his listeners to call their elected officials.

"We" don't garner the same respect simply because we lack the same organization.

#23823: — 05/03 at 01:13 PM
This would be a perfect opportunity for someone - like you, PZ - to put together a brief list of "Answers to the 10 questions being spread by the Discover Institute", post it somewhere like Talk.Origins, and send CBS News a link.

I know I've seen stuff recently on Panda's Thumb about the Cambrian, about peppered moths, reducing atmosphere on the early Earth...

#23825: PZ Myers — 05/03 at 01:23 PM
Uh, it's been done -- that's the link from NCSE I included in the article.

Maybe I should steal it and post it here or PT to hammer it home.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#23826: — 05/03 at 01:44 PM
As a former journalist and current journalism basher, I can tell you that the main reason journalists do that kind of thing is that most of them are abominably educated. A journalism major can graduate without learning much of anything. A reporter from a certain big-city newspaper in a certain big city in Georgia as much as admitted it in print a while back. She was the Y2K End-of-the-World reporter. She said journalists are not trained to do much beyond looking at public records and asking people questions. They are not trained to evaluate the answers.

A snide comment: most journalists aspire to be something else, usually a lawyer. I think it's because they go to the exciting trials, see the lawyers perform, and say, "I can do that!" So they go to law school. Few of them aspire to be scientists. I know personally of only one: me.

#23827: — 05/03 at 01:48 PM
OK, one more snide comment couched as a story. A well-known TV reporter (recently retiring) was the Southeast reporter for a network before she hit the big time. There was an interesting trial taking place in federal court in a small South Carolina town. The trial lasted two weeks. The TV reporter came on the last day, stayed around a couple of hours while the artist the print media people to call her and tell her how the verdict went. Then she appeared on TV and authoritatively reported on this trial about which she knew nothing.

#23828: — 05/03 at 01:49 PM
I screwed up the edit. It should read "The TV reporter came on the last day, stayed around a couple of hours while the artist drew some pictures, then asked one of the print media people to call her ..." Sorry about that.

Trackback: This is what I'm Talking About Tracked on: Unscrewing The Inscrutable (66.197.215.85) at 2005 05 03 14:16:01
See, this kind of shit irritates me. A CBS News Article has appeared (Source-Christian Science Monitor) in which the reporter is trying to be 'balanced' concerning evolutionary biology vs Creationism re; Kansas. Worse, there is a side bar on the...

#23833: — 05/03 at 02:41 PM
CBS = See B.S.

#23837: — 05/03 at 02:56 PM
We still need to push back. I used their feedback section to leave the links to the NCSE and Talk Origins. But I'm only one person. Everybody needs to do the same so CBS gets the message.

Trackback: The Response to "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher" Tracked on: The Austringer (66.12.166.227) at 2005 05 03 15:00:29
The media seems to be finding the antievolution movement's propaganda without difficulty, but has more trouble locating the mainstream science responses. A particular example occurred with a CBS news item that listed the Discovery Institute's "Ten Q...

#23838: — 05/03 at 03:05 PM
You're right -- the answers to the 10 questions should have been included. I suspect space issues.

But before your ire really bursts those bulging veins on your forehead, look again: First, CBS is carrying what really is a very good article from the Christian Science Monitor (which, despite its religious ownership, is usually pretty good on such stories)(go see the story here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s04-legn.html?s=t5); second, the questions are carried in a sidebar that clearly identifies them as propaganda questions urged by critics of evolution; third, at the Christian Science Monitor site, that sidebar is accompanied by a poll that was still open a few minutes ago, on whether kids ought to be loaded up with such questions to bother biology teachers (it's running about 80% against the DI questions at the moment)-- so you can go vote against it.

This isn't meant to be much comfort -- what this means is that your action is needed in more places. See the CSMonitor site, and write them, too. And then understand that CSM has a syndicate, and that story is likely to be picked up in daily newspapers across the nation. Watch for it in a paper near you, especially if you don't live in New York, Los Angeles or Washington. Get your letters ready.

#23840: Philip Brooks — 05/03 at 03:10 PM
I was somehow under the impression that the Christian Science Monitor was pretty good about covering scientific issues appropriately, especially for a paper run by a church. I guess I was wrong.

#23841: craig — 05/03 at 03:13 PM

In my opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist, one for whom writing pays the bills, to not follow up with opposing sources or consult an expert.

In MY opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist to pay any attention to PR flaks in the first place.
PR is trying to sell something, whether it be product or idealogy. When you use that ADVERTISING as the seed of an article, you get their advertising out even if you try to "balance it" with other opinions.
If you bite on Men's Warehouses bait, you get their advertising out for them free even if you include a counterpoint.

PR firms know that they can't possibly lose in the proposition. You get your message out no matter what, and you sell your product.

This is exactly how the DI is able to operate - like any PR firm they know that if they churn out the press releases, somewhere it will stick, some paper somewhere will take the bait.. and once it's printed, others will be more likely to take the bait... and scientists will be left with nothing to do but respond - and that very response will serve to strengthen the legitimacy of the DI's garbage in most people's minds. They can't possibly lose as long as some paper somewhere picks up their press release, and they know that as long as they keep churning them out that is inevitable.

If you read the paper critically, you can see that virtualy any story not in the front section is essentially just advertising... usually by the end of the article you can figure out exactly whose PR agency got the story placed.

#23846: Orac — 05/03 at 03:29 PM
Sadly, most journalists have only a rudimentary understanding of science, if that. Couple that with the fallacious quest for "balance" between two viewpoints that are not even close to equally valid, and articles like the CBS story are the result.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#23848: — 05/03 at 03:37 PM

Uh, it's been done -- that's the link from NCSE I included in the article.

Thanks, I've got it bookmarked now.

#23849: Ken Cope — 05/03 at 03:42 PM
We need PR flacks to be as pervasive; Wells' creationist drivel is popping up in the oddest places.

When my wife completed the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle's quote-acrostic puzzle, she was angry to have worked so hard to decipher this BS:

"But a definition of science cannot possibly limit the nature of reality," Wells comments, "Even if an intelligent designer is beyond the reach of Darwinian science, such a designer may nevertheless be real."

Cripes, it's like a perpetual game of wack-a-mole.

#23851: — 05/03 at 03:54 PM

In MY opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist to pay any attention to PR flaks in the first place.

Well, as a former PR flack, I'd say that they get listened to when they have credibility and/or when they provide information that is useful.

Reporters pay attention to flacks because good ones will show them where the great stories are.

But you're right about throwing stuff out to see if it sticks -- of course, a good, repsonsible flack does that with good stories, too. Darrell's Rules of Tens: For every ten press releases put out (on average), one will get printed. For every ten times a reporter gets an item from a source, one item will get printed. For every ten media outlets contacted, one will run an item.

So, if you want to compete with the Discovery Institute, you need to put out some press items. How many have you done today?

Why do you think the DI spends most of its budget on PR, and none of it on research? What does that tell you about the mission of the DI? Of every $10,000 PZ gets in research grants, how much of it goes to research, and how much to generating press? What does that tell you about PZ's mission?

See? PR flackery can indeed point to good, solid information . . .

Seriously, however, I always found science stories the hardest to sell. Generally they were the most rewarding, however.

(My recommendation to PZ, and all you other honest researchers out there: Take a stroll over to your campuses' public relations bunch; invite them to come to your lab and see your neat stuff. When you get a paper accepted for publication, call and tell them. Tell them the lay person's version of what it is, what it does, and why it is important to the university and the public at large. Figure out what would be a good, interesting photo, and suggest you could help the photographer. It's not the PR flack's fault that we don't provide better stories in opposition. It's not the reporter's fault, either.)

[Is the plural of "campus," "campi?"]

#23854: — 05/03 at 04:15 PM
Have any of you bothered to read the article? Have your brains fallen out today or something?

This is its concluding paragraph, quoting a science teacher:

"When there's no empirical evidence, some very serious things can happen," she says. "If we can't look around at what is really there and try to put something logical and intelligent together from that without our fears getting in the way, then I think that we're doomed."

I don't know who put those DI box quotes there. (I'll put a bet on an editor, though.) But don't blame the journalist. Because throughout the article is sympathetic to the science teachers. The journalist went and talked to them, and listened to the problems they are facing in the classroom. They're real. What are you going to do about that?

#23855: Chris Clarke — 05/03 at 04:16 PM
[Is the plural of "campus," "campi?"]

Without looking it up, I''m guessing it's "campi" if "campus" is second declension, and "campus" if fourth declension.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

Next entry: Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher

Previous entry: A nonsensical atheist

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Lazy anti-evolution reporting

Info