This unfortunate interview is a classic example of false balance in science communication and the dangers it can cause. And I'm going to get mad about it. A thread. https://twitter.com/BRRshow/status/1308964368646770688
If you don't know much about false balance here is a primer, but it is where interviewing someone with publicly controverial (but not scientifically conroversial) views leads people to think that there is no scientific consensus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680130/
That is, that there are a "balance" of views, and that it is important to hear from both sides. To be fair the journalists have claimed that they were trying to hold Evans to account. Lets see how that worked out...
As does the Editor of the Medical Journal of Australia @MJA_Editor for what its worth. https://twitter.com/MJA_Editor/status/1300202760470589440?s=20
At one point Evans makes a bunch of truly bizzare and false claims about Daniel Andrews including that he has made "sixty trips to China over the past six years." Again this went unchallenged.
These journalists are claiming that they have performed their legitimate journalistic role in holding Evans to account, however the number of false claims that were left unchallenged means, unfortunately, that this isn't true in practice - even if it was their intent.
@AusSMC has some very good guidelines on this, but granting a long-form interview about scientific topics to a noted conspiracy theorist without being challenged by a scientist - or some other expert - is dangerous practice...

https://www.smc.org.au/for-media/tips-on-reporting-science
You can follow @matt_nurse.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: