AGCI Session II: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty
Session Chairs: Dr. Richard H. Moss and Dr. Stephen H. Schneider
July 31 to August 8, 1996
How Journalists Deal With Scientific Uncertainty
S. Holly Stocking
Indiana University School of Journalism
Bloomington, Indiana
Stocking discussed observed patterns of content and influences on this content with regard to how the media cover scientific uncertainty. Studies of observed patterns are limited. Most of the evidence is from studies conducted for other purposes, and all but a few studies focus on mainstream U. S. "elite" newspapers ( The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Los Angeles Times). There has been little attention to television, letters to the editor, editorials and op-eds, films, books, and new technologies.
The evidence, such as it is, supports scientists' frequent complaints that the mainstream news media make science appear more certain than scientists think it is. At the same time, though, evidence also exists to support the view that the media sometimes make science appear more uncertain and baffling than it in fact may be.
When the mainstream news media make science appear more certain than scientists think it is, they do it in a number of ways. These include:
Downplaying caveats In simplifying science, journalists often downplay the limitations and inherent uncertainties of studies. In accuracy studies (in which scientists are asked about the accuracy of a story for which they were interviewed) omission of caveats are a frequently-mentioned problem. One important study found that the majority of journalists who wrote about science did only single-source interviews; they thus failed to tap sources who might have volunteered caveats about the research.
Offering little context Little attempt is made to link stories to previous research or background on a topic, often making science news appear disembodied and timeless.
Emphasizing product over process Journalists tend to pay more attention to findings and less to the interpretive work that goes into developing the findings.
Presenting science as a "triumphant quest" When journalists do write about the process of science, they often present scientists as "warriors" or as "detectives" trying "to unlock mysteries." This assumes that knowledge and certainty will "win the war" against ignorance and uncertainty that answers will be found and mysteries solved.
Downplaying fringe or dissenting scientists Stocking says that some of the best studies have found a high correlation between visibility of scientists in news accounts and visibility of scientists in the scientific literature as measured by citation counts. This would seem to suggest that fringe or dissenting scientists don't get undue attention in the news as some scientists complain. (The same is true for politics; fringe figures generally get little attention in the mainstream press). However, it is quite possible that such findings would not hold up for some media or for some issues, particularly those that are highly charged, with important political and economic interests at stake.
The majority of
journalists who wrote about science did only single-source
interviews; they thus failed to tap sources who might have
volunteered caveats about the research.
When journalists make science appear more uncertain and baffling than it in fact may be, as is sometimes the case, they seem to do it in a number of ways, by:
Not explaining sudden changes Journalists may fail to explain why today's study disagrees with yesterday's, leaving the public to question the validity of all science. Also, they may fail to explain that two seemingly contradictory conclusions can be true ( e. g., aspirin is good for the heart but bad for the stomach).
Not explaining disagreements Journalists may play up the disagreements between scientists without sorting out the differences, explaining the reasons for them, or noting which claims come from the majority and which from the minority.
Playing up fringe or dissenting scientists This has been seen in the highly-charged climate debate, where some journalists (particularly on the op-ed pages) play up the views of contrarians, thereby raising an undue level of uncertainty about conclusions that are actually matters of scientific consensus.
In the
highly-charged climate debate, some journalists (particularly on the
op-ed pages) play up the views of contrarians, thereby raising an
undue level of uncertainty about conclusions that are actually
matters of scientific consensus.
Social scientists have observed all of these patterns in mainstream news media, Stocking said. And they also have observed exceptions to almost all of these patterns. Occasionally, for example, caveats and context are included, process is stressed over product, and certainty is portrayed as elusive or impossible.
If we have little direct data concerning patterns of uncertainty in journalistic accounts, we have even less direct evidence concerning the factors that go into creating these patterns. In spite of this fact, Stocking speculated on the factors that might be implicated. In doing so, she drew from what she called the "dart board" model of media constraints. This model includes all the influences on journalists, from those most distant from the individual journalist (on the outside ring of the dart board) to those most immediate (in the bull's-eye); it includes, in other words, influences ranging from cultural factors and outside influences like public relations activities (in the outer rings), to organizational influences, media routines, and in the center, individual influences such as the level of scientific knowledge (see Figure 2.15).
Stocking feels
that scientists' criticisms tend to focus too much on the ignorance
of the individual journalist in the bull's-eye. Most social
scientists who study science news, she said, assume that factors in
the outer rings of influence matter more.
Stocking expressed her view that scientists' criticisms tend to focus too much on the ignorance of the individual journalist in the bull's-eye. Most social scientists who study science news, she said, assume that factors in the outer rings of influence matter more. For example, as discussed in depth in this session by Sharon Dunwoody, journalists' occupational routines and norms present many barriers to the accurate presentation of scientific uncertainty.
On all of these subjects, a great deal of discussion ensued. How do journalists define news? It must be timely, involve important people, have a huge impact, have close-to-home proximity, and/or have appeared in The New York Times (which often sets the agenda for other papers). There is a tendency for journalists to go for their stories to scientists who "give good quote," can speak in "sound bites," can speak journalists' language, and use metaphors that people can relate to.
It is also important to realize that most news comes from public relations efforts. Press releases from organizations like the Global Climate Coalition represent a professional effort to get their side of the story out. Most scientists, on the other hand, do not like to think about public relations. They prefer to think the science will speak for itself, but this is not so.
One participant raised the problem that journalists do little background research, and what little they do is usually of other journalists' stories. This may perpetuate errors and inadequacies that appear in the popular press. Systematic fact-checking is also not common in newspapers. In-depth reporting yields much better results than the crisis reporting mode most journalists usually operate in, but it is increasingly rare. Some journalists will allow a scientific source to see the story prior to publication, but Stocking stressed that it is but a small minority of journalists who will submit to pre-publication review.
Most news comes
from public relations efforts. Press releases from organizations like
the Global Climate Coalition represent a professional effort to get
their side of the story out. Most scientists, on the other hand, do
not like to think about public relations.
Stocking pointed out that another problem is that pictures and headlines are out of the control of the journalist who writes the story. Increasingly, with the help of new technologies, journalists are suggesting headlines, but the time pressure is extreme and editors don't have much time to edit and think about titles.
The point was also raised that when journalists go to scientific meetings for information, the scientists there are discussing the cutting edge of science. This is appropriate for the scientists, but journalists often misunderstand such debate and think that nothing is agreed upon. Thus journalists get mostly misconceptions from such meetings. There are steps scientists can take to address this problem, such as making themselves available to talk with journalists at scientific meetings and explaining things with appropriate language and context.
Finally, Stocking pointed out that journalists are quite sensitive to feedback, both positive and negative. Journalism periodicals ( e. g., The Columbia Journalism Review) define the quality and ethics expected of journalists, and can be expected to constrain journalists' behavior, at least to a degree. Professional organizations and awards for science journalism can also be expected to work in this way.
Scientists, particularly those whose work has ramifications for public policy, have a tremendous responsibility to learn how to communicate through the news media. And journalists also have a responsibility to learn more and improve their understanding and reporting of scientific uncertainty.
Scientists have
a responsibility to learn how to communicate through the news media.
And journalists also have a responsibility to learn more and improve
their understanding and reporting of scientific uncertainty.