Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science journalism has a problem | Big Think

Science journalism has a problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journalists writing about science have become more science fluent over the past 20 years, but the need to be first and the practice of giving equal exposure to opposing views regardless of scientific evidence (e.g. climate change) has been detrimental to the public's understanding of the facts.

Reporting on science from the "frontier" doesn't provide the full picture because it doesn't give scientists time to verify and re-verify the results of experiments.

Journalists have more power than scientists when it comes to disseminating information, so it's their inherent responsibility to get the facts right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL DEGRASSE:

Neil deGrasse Tyson was born and raised in New York City where he was educated in the public schools clear through his graduation from the Bronx High School of Science. Tyson went on to earn his BA in Physics from Harvard and his PhD in Astrophysics from Columbia. He is the first occupant of the Frederick P. Rose Directorship of the Hayden Planetarium. His professional research interests are broad, but include star formation, exploding stars, dwarf galaxies, and the structure of our Milky Way. Tyson obtains his data from the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as from telescopes in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and in the Andes Mountains of Chile.Tyson is the recipient of nine honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson".

Tyson's new book is Letters From an Astrophysicist (2019).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Neil deGrasse Tyson: I remember some years ago, 20 years ago, anytime I was interviewed by a journalist, a print journalist. The print journalism is taking what I said and turning it into an article. So it has to pass through the journalist, get processed and then it becomes some written content on a page. One hundred percent of those experiences the journalist got something fundamentally wrong with the subject matter. And just an interesting point about the power of journalists. I had people read the article and say Neil, you must know better than that. That’s not how this works. They assumed the journalist was correct about reporting what I said. Not that I was correct and that the journalist was wrong. Okay, this is an interesting power that journalists have over whether you think what they’re writing is true or not. I even had a case – I have one brother and a sister. I had a case where they misreported that I had two brothers. And I had a friend of mine who had been a friend for five or ten years say Neil, I just read – I didn’t know you had two brothers. And I said I don’t. Well it says it right here. This is the power of journalism. A mistake becomes truth. That was decades ago. In recent years what I think has happened is there are more journalists who are science fluent that are writing about science than was the case 20 years ago. So now I don’t have to worry about the journalist missing something fundamental about what I’m trying to describe. And reporting has been much more accurate in recent years I’m happy to report. However, there’s something that has not been fixed in journalism yet. It’s their urge to get the story first, the science story, the breaking news about a discovery. The urge to get it first means they’re reporting on something that’s not yet verified by other scientific experiments. If it’s not yet verified it’s not there yet. And you’re more likely to write about a story that is most extraordinary. And the more extraordinary is the single scientific result, the less likely it is that it’s going to be true. So you need some restraint there or some way to buffer the account. I don’t want you to not talk about it but say this is not yet verified, it’s not yet this, it’s not yet that. And it’s been criticized by these other people anyway so be more open about how wrong the thing is you’re reporting on could be. Because other wise you’re doing a disservice to the public. And that disservice is you’ll say people out there say scientists don’t know anything. Well what gives you that idea? Well one week cholesterol is good for you and the next week it’s bad for you. They don’t know what they’re doing. That’s on the frontier. On the frontier science is flipflopping all the time. Yes, if you’re going to report from the frontier it looks like scientists are clueless about everything.

[LudvigIndestrucable]

Huge props to Neil for avoiding the 'consensus of scientists' argument, no, it's the consensus of data (evidence and experiment). It's not consensus of opinion that matters, it's the data.

[sussekind]

I've been saying the same thing for decades. Niel is just able to put it into words better than I ever could. Not to mention, people listen to Niel, nobody listens to me.
Well done.

[AvangionQ]

2:18 "You're more likely to write about a story that is most extraordinary, and the more extraordinary is the single scientific result, the less likely it is it's going to be true. You need some restraint there, or some way to buffer the account. I don't want you to not talk about it, but say this is not yet verified." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science illiteracy among journalists has improved, but reporters' tendencies towards breaking news (the lack of corroborative verification before publication) and neutrality biases (treating both sides of a story equally when one side is objectively correct) have yet to be properly addressed, which leads to a large portion of the public that distrusts both journalists and scientists.

[drdrew]

Seeing Neil DeGrasse Tyson pissed off gave me goosebumps

[DukeOfKidderminster]

If you haven’t heard of Ben Goldacre, he makes similar points about science journalism. He’s worth checking out too.

[AakashBanodhe]

The problem is that rather that listening, most people are just saying what they believe without even confirming the facts. It is rather a race to be first then to be right.

[sobysonics]

Great little segment by Neil, my takeaways are
1) scientific journalism should accurately translate what the science says
2) scientific journalism wrongfully promotes coverage of novelty (novelty is not science)
3) science transpires through rigorous and longstanding investigation
4) scientific journalism should dedicate space according to the data
ex 4a covid vaccine benefits should get more coverage than its drawbacks (assuming more data on pros)
ex 4b risks of gene edited babies should get more coverage than its benefits (assuming more data on cons)

[chucku]

S̶̶c̶̶i̶̶e̶̶n̶̶c̶̶e̶̶ journalism has a problem
Fixed.

[USUG]

that's remind me of once I had an interview and the journalist completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. The lesson I learned: always make an audio/video recording of the conversation and warn the journalists you will sue them if they don't report faithfully what you said.

[vitormartins]

Totally agree with Nell here. If you're gonna treat statements of unequal scientific value as equivalent, go ahead, but just don't frame it as a scientific discussion. Everyone is free to disregard science (as problematic as that is), but the matter here is dishonesty.

[solankiajay]

When neil says HOWEVER....
shit bout to go down

[johanbjork]

True story from my native Sweden. When a number of years ago yet another study showed that a small amount of red wine consumed every day could prevent strokes, a tabloid newspaper went with the headline New research: alcohol can cure brain damage.

[j]

I feel like scientists should say what Neil has said here as a disclaimer every time they appear in the media. The number of comments I see from people claiming scientists don't know anything is staggering.

[erikcbaardd]

I've had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Tyson, and remain grateful for the chance to share his insights with others. But regarding climate change, the reach of print and broadcast reports taking denial seriously has already been greatly reduced and continues to shrink rapidly. The overwhelming share of coverage now is devoted to adaptation and resilience (and businesses that might stand to profit from innovation), not basic science questions. Evolution is similarly weighted, I'm happy to say, even if notions like "intelligent design" are irritating. I think the greater problem is the demographic known in politics as "low-information voters." They're often tuned out, or tuned into only comforting commentary, not news reporting. Finally, Dr. Tyson seems to believe that reporters don't including counter-arguments in their reporting of claims of new discoveries, while they compulsively include counter-arguments against deeply verified observations. I've never had occasion to compare the prevalence of these scenarios, but if true can imagine a snarky "law" being written about it: "The certainty of a discovery is inversely proportional to reporters' compulsion to quote skeptics."

[avradiob]

3:50 Imagine reporting the weather like this. "Our meteorologist says that there's a 80% chance of rain on Tuesday, but this other guy says that Tuesday is going to be the second coming where the streets will flow with blood, so it's anyone's guess who is right!"

[piehound]

Excellent observations about science journalism. We laypersons (ordinary folks without expert knowledge) need to pay attention to this . . . BIG TIME. Journalism is competitive. And in their rush to be first . . . they often miss the truth.

[Nauct]

I wish I could watch the news and get accurate relevant information about the world. Imagine if you could do that

[aekapatchunwiriyakul]

And Neil deGrasse is Science journalism.

[jommeissner]

A journalist 20 years ago would have quoted Neil like: "Scientists are clueless about mostly everything"
When I made my thesis, literally every journalist who came to the Institute I worked at, especially those from TV, stated something utterly wrong, not only about sisters being brothers, but about the Work itself.

[alirezashiasi]

This is not 100% journalism's fault, maybe it is 20 to at most 40%.
I think, it's the lacks of critical thinking in us which opened the way for reports to blow our minds. (perhaps lack of thinking it self_)

Anyway it's a human bug! :)