Comments on: Statistically insignificant amount of truth in science reporting http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/ Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:21:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Happy people, not Places « A canna’ change the laws of physics http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-9351 Happy people, not Places « A canna’ change the laws of physics Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:58:54 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-9351 <p>[...] number of bloggers picked up on this facile churnalism (here, here and here).  Ben Goldacre covered it in his Guardian column.  I entered into a dialogue with one of the [...]</p> […] number of bloggers picked up on this facile churnalism (here, here and here).  Ben Goldacre covered it in his Guardian column.  I entered into a dialogue with one of the […]

]]> By: Dougal http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-5155 Dougal Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:28:48 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-5155 <p>Mark, I would guess you're absolutely right. Do press releases typically include all the references needed, or are they not even mentioned by university press offices? Maybe press offices should be encouraged to focus their blurbs on this information so that it doesn't get omitted from newspapers. Even mentioning the researcher's name and university would be a massive help in some cases. "Experts believe," indeed!</p> Mark, I would guess you’re absolutely right. Do press releases typically include all the references needed, or are they not even mentioned by university press offices? Maybe press offices should be encouraged to focus their blurbs on this information so that it doesn’t get omitted from newspapers. Even mentioning the researcher’s name and university would be a massive help in some cases. “Experts believe,” indeed!

]]> By: Mark Liberman http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-5151 Mark Liberman Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:41:54 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-5151 <p><i>The lack of references in news stories really annoys me. I’ve probably even written about it before. It can be pretty difficult to track down the source of a statement when all we have to go on is “scientists said” or “experts have found”.</i></p> <p>In many (most?) cases, the journalist will have written the story from a press release, and perhaps an interview, without ever having seen the original source(s).</p> The lack of references in news stories really annoys me. I’ve probably even written about it before. It can be pretty difficult to track down the source of a statement when all we have to go on is “scientists said” or “experts have found”.

In many (most?) cases, the journalist will have written the story from a press release, and perhaps an interview, without ever having seen the original source(s).

]]> By: The BBC Provides Irritainment in the Quest to Optimize the News — Media Slackers http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-5137 The BBC Provides Irritainment in the Quest to Optimize the News — Media Slackers Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:52:29 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-5137 <p>[...] over at the blog “Looking Out to Sea“, wrote a very entertaining and informative piece on the BBC’s own attempts at [...]</p> […] over at the blog “Looking Out to Sea“, wrote a very entertaining and informative piece on the BBC’s own attempts at […]

]]> By: Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Random journalising: another case of journalists misrepresenting stats http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-5081 Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Random journalising: another case of journalists misrepresenting stats Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:23:14 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-5081 <p>[...] up by ‘Ithika’, posting in the Bad Science forum, and it has also been blogged about at dougalstanton.net and [...]</p> […] up by ‘Ithika’, posting in the Bad Science forum, and it has also been blogged about at dougalstanton.net and […]

]]> By: The BBC mislead, for a laugh « gimpy’s blog http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-5033 The BBC mislead, for a laugh « gimpy’s blog Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:29:20 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-5033 <p>[...] mislead, for a la…BBC editor concedes … on The BBC mislead, for a la…Looking Out To Sea … on The BBC mislead, for a la…gimpy on The BBC mislead, for a la…apgaylard [...]</p> […] mislead, for a la…BBC editor concedes … on The BBC mislead, for a la…Looking Out To Sea … on The BBC mislead, for a la…gimpy on The BBC mislead, for a la…apgaylard […]

]]> By: BBC editor concedes ‘happiest place’ story is baseless « A canna’ change the laws of physics http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-4973 BBC editor concedes ‘happiest place’ story is baseless « A canna’ change the laws of physics Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:07:51 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-4973 <p>[...] through the piece and entirely scuppers it as a story.  A few ‘bad science’ types have spotted this - notably gimpy - and let the BBC know what they [...]</p> […] through the piece and entirely scuppers it as a story.  A few ‘bad science’ types have spotted this - notably gimpy - and let the BBC know what they […]

]]> By: jdc http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/index.php/2008/09/05/statistically-insignificant-amount-of-truth-in-science-reporting/comment-page-1/#comment-4967 jdc Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:53:11 +0000 http://www.dougalstanton.net/blog/?p=360#comment-4967 <p>"If these same news stories can now be relied upon to state the opposite conclusions to the source, what use is science reporting at all?" That's a very good question. Given that the media presumably expect us to trust their reports and that they don't link to the original research (or cite it), I think we have a right to expect accurate reporting. I'm very disappointed that not only do the media seem to disagree with me on this, but they don't feel that they owe me a response to any questions I ask on the subject. I don't even find their stories entertaining, so I'm not sure why they consider them to be 'entertainment'.</p> “If these same news stories can now be relied upon to state the opposite conclusions to the source, what use is science reporting at all?” That’s a very good question. Given that the media presumably expect us to trust their reports and that they don’t link to the original research (or cite it), I think we have a right to expect accurate reporting. I’m very disappointed that not only do the media seem to disagree with me on this, but they don’t feel that they owe me a response to any questions I ask on the subject. I don’t even find their stories entertaining, so I’m not sure why they consider them to be ‘entertainment’.

]]>