Read on Twitter
A reflection...
What’s the difference between a journalist & a scientist?
If you ask a journalist “what do people think” they run into the street with a camera and mike, and that evening three people’s answer is broadcast, at length, to hundreds of thousands or millions.
/1
What’s the difference between a journalist & a scientist?
If you ask a journalist “what do people think” they run into the street with a camera and mike, and that evening three people’s answer is broadcast, at length, to hundreds of thousands or millions.
/1
A first year student of mathematics, or statistics, or physics, chemistry, psychology, sociology, economics, even business and opinion pollsters would be failed instantly for that answer.
But not journalists.
Decades of work by thousands of scientists has failed to reach /2
But not journalists.
Decades of work by thousands of scientists has failed to reach /2
the ears of that same audience, the audience commanded daily by journalists who write a story about ONE person & present it as representative of an entire group.
In reality they’re no different from politicians, making assertions completely unsupported by any facts or research/3
In reality they’re no different from politicians, making assertions completely unsupported by any facts or research/3
but broadcast to huge audiences as the truth.
Journalists are the anti-scientists, constantly promoting as fact information that’s based on little or no evidence, forever running “vox-pop” interviews as though they’re a real random-sample survey, basing arguments on /4
Journalists are the anti-scientists, constantly promoting as fact information that’s based on little or no evidence, forever running “vox-pop” interviews as though they’re a real random-sample survey, basing arguments on /4
one-person “profiles” & stories & pretending that because it’s true of one person it’s true of many or all.
Journalists constantly report & repeat totally baseless claims by politicians without holding them up to any impartial scrutiny.
This is the antithesis of science./5
Journalists constantly report & repeat totally baseless claims by politicians without holding them up to any impartial scrutiny.
This is the antithesis of science./5
In doing this, journalists are not neutral observers at all.
They’re constantly promoting the idea that their n=1 or n=3 “research” is worthy of as much attention, or more, than genuine research, and that unsupported claims are as good as validated facts.
/6
They’re constantly promoting the idea that their n=1 or n=3 “research” is worthy of as much attention, or more, than genuine research, and that unsupported claims are as good as validated facts.
/6
They’re willing accomplices in the broadcasting of “everybody’s opinion is equal” noise, and amplification of unscrutinised lies.
They have a massive audience, and power, and they’re abusing it, every day.
I fully expect a backlash now from respectable journalists; /7
They have a massive audience, and power, and they’re abusing it, every day.
I fully expect a backlash now from respectable journalists; /7
to them I’d say this is just like men saying “not all men”.
Indeed. Not all men, but your outrage or hurt sensibilities not only miss the point, they detract from the undeniable overall truth.
It’s not just politicians who have allowed climate change to reach this point,/8
Indeed. Not all men, but your outrage or hurt sensibilities not only miss the point, they detract from the undeniable overall truth.
It’s not just politicians who have allowed climate change to reach this point,/8
or for political “debate” to degenerate into the daily amplification of known lies, for scandal after scandal to disappear from the front pages without investigation or consequence.
You’re propagandists, aiding & abetting the silencing of science & the proper scrutiny of power.
You’re propagandists, aiding & abetting the silencing of science & the proper scrutiny of power.
