More Science Journalists, Fewer Science Supporters

Scientists are among the worst groups to report about. They are always moaning, complaining and often ungrateful about the coverage they get in the mass media, and some of them are clever enough (or so they think) to offer advice to professional journalists about how they may go about doing their jobs better. In general they are never satisfied; not enough, not enough of the right sort, too simple, too alarmist, too inaccurate, are frequent accusations. They seem to forget how lucky they are with the great deal of uncritically supportive coverage they do get, coverage envied by other groups. On the other hand their worries have some basis when one considers how the major science stories of recent times have treated them.Some consider that recent media reporting of climate change in particular to have raised new questions about the role of the media in communicating science, especially in relation to the idea of a consensus and maintaining journalistic balance. I have said before that I feel many science journalists have become advocates for the subject, too close to it, regarded as “doing a good job” by its protagonists. Because of this they lack detachment and by implication judgement. This results in cherry picking items to report that fit into their world view and neglecting inconvenient ones, becoming defenders and cheerleaders of science, too often uncritical, quick to pounce of any old piece of dodgy research and flag it up as a triumph against the so-called deniers, and in so doing becoming the opposite of journalists.In retrospect it has been coming for a long time and in some cases its lineage can be traced back more than a decade. Perhaps it has something to do with the rise of science communication courses at universities, few of which are taught by blooded journalists. Many science reporters haven’t been scientists and haven’t been general reporters. Like the rise of the career politician that goes straight from University to politics it is a worrying trend.Discernable TrendThe BBC, in particular, must be heartily sick of all the complaints it gets about its coverage of climate change. But for an organisation of such scale, resources and influence the BBC has frequently gotten itself into a muddle concerning its science reporting.  Like climate, which is long-term weather, individual stories can be linked to form a discernable trend to show us where we are today.In 1996 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and its link to a new variant of the brain-wasting Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease, was a major science story. It had many of the aspects that make a great “story” in journalistic terms; uncertain science, disagreement, health, food, policy, government action, farmers, cows, families and tragedy. But the BBC approached the science in the wrong way. In the face of rampant tabloid press speculation about the possibility of a decimating mass epidemic the BBC followed suit instead of sticking to the scientific data and putting speculation in its proper context, something that would become a pattern. It also relied too much on single sources of scientific opinion that it treated as scientific information, especially one Oxford University source I recall that was later shown to be inadequate.Fifteen years later where are we? About 170 people have died of the new strain of CJD (no one knows how many are currently infected and what the incubation period is.) There are many, many diseases that afflict far more than 170 that never get media attention. Overall BSE/CJD was a great journalistic story that could have done with more scientific thinking.In November 1996 the world’s largest outbreak of E Coli 0157 occurred in Wishaw in Scotland, traced to a butcher’s shop. Essentially this was a health story and therein lay some fault lines – the BBC was for a long while confused about what was science, health or medicine. There is only so much that can be said about the life cycle of E Coli 0157, and its available and foreseeable treatments. Yet somehow, because it dealt with a microorganism, and because the health advice quickly became repetitive it was seen mistakenly seen through a science lens. It was once described to me as the “science story of the year,” by a BBC executive which it definitely was not.In February 1999 came the so-called GM debate that was initially whipped up by the Guardian (who deliberately excluded their admirable science correspondent in the first instance.) It was one of the most acrimonious debates seen in the British media for many years. Once again the BBC failed to set its mark on the story using good scientific information and was left flailing and following the newspapers. For me this was a turning point. The BBC seemed unable to exercise scientific authority in its news reports, or be able to look at the basic scientific data itself.Dr Arpad Pusztai’s experiments feeding rats GM potatoes (with a control sample fed non-GM potatoes) were first described on ITV’s “World In Action.” The BBC followed it up, sometimes making a show out of adding trivial information to the story. In doing so it reported the surface of the story. No one it seemed really looked in detail at Dr Pusztai’s research, or it seemed had the scientific and statistical training to do so. In May 1999 Downing Street accused the BBC of failing to take a measured view of GM foods.To my mind GM highlighted another growing failing. BBC News (and some other news organisations) had a far too cosy relationship with the science establishment and lobbyists, a relationship that remains to this day. Science journalism was becoming subservient to science communication. Scientists must have been delighted. In October 2010 the BBC Trust issued new editorial guidelines that are germain. They included a section that said: 4.4.20 Similarly, the BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.The same applies to scientists and organisations like the Royal Society. Jonathan Leake, science and environment editor at the Sunday Times said recently, “Science in the daily media is too often reported in the same deferential way as political journalists used to report politics in the 1950s.”Then there was MMR. Not the BBC’s best moment when it comes to reporting science. It had been suggested by one scientist that there was a link between it and autism, later others backed this claim but at no point was it other than a very contentious and minor position. Journalistically it ticked the “maverick scientist who takes on the establishment and who might be proven right,” cliché. The BBC totally failed to judge correctly the value of the differing points of view about this issue. The balance between the human side of the story and the science was inept; grieving parents of an autistic child looking for explanations and possibly something to blame, pressure groups, the scientists who say there is no link, the few who say there is, a nervous politician passing the buck or calling for more funding for research. The BBC became just a purveyor of opinions, lacking authority of its own, and went off in many directions regarding this story, few of them calibrated by the weight of scientific judgement. It was not mainly a question of balance, he said, she said, journalism, it was a failure at a deeper level. It has been said that MMR was a failure of science communication. Perhaps that is true. It was most definitely one of the biggest ever failures of science journalism.Climate change therefore following a pattern, established over the past 15 years, of overemphasising the scientific consensus. But this approach forgets that journalism is not just about relaying information, scientific or otherwise. Just doing that, relaying the consensus, would result in a very poor journalist. Journalism is about not taking sides, it’s about shaking the tree, about asking award questions, about standing in the place of those who can’t ask such questions, and being persistent, unpopular and dogged. It’s not about being part of the spectrum of communicating science – which is something that scientists and non-journalistic broadcasters should do – it is a vital aspect of democracy. It is neither an extension of the scientific establishment, nor even its friend or on its side, and it is fundamentally different from science communication.If the price of science journalism is for some to tolerate the presence on air or in print of those they think are wrong, even stupidly wrong, then that is a price worth paying. If they have to debate and repeat themselves, so be it. If basic scientific questions have to be asked again and again then that is a price worth paying. That some active and contentious scientific topics are placed beyond debate because they are deemed “settled” is wrong. Good journalism is the antithesis of a crude expression like “we’ve gone beyond that” allied to an over simplistic view of the science.Peaks and TroughsIn my view science journalism is in a mess. Science journalists have overemphasised the science at the expense of the journalism.They can’t even agree amongst themselves. In January 2010 the department for Business Innovation and Skills issued a report entitled, “Science and the Media: Securing the Future.” One of its conclusions was, “In some ways, then, we have judged science in the media to be in rude health.”Such an assessment of science journalism in the UK was not shared by those who were surveyed in Margot O’Neill’s report for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University.She writes: It has been dubbed the news story of the century with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance. But at the time of writing (July, 2010), journalists are struggling to find an audience for the epic tale of Climate Change even in the back pages of their newspapers. This report attempts to provide a snapshot of how UK specialist journalists working in the mainstream media perceive the changing public, political and editorial climate for their coverage of global warming; why they believe public and editorial interest is flagging; and what they perceive as potentially the most engaging journalism to take the story forward.“Rude health” is not how many science journalists would describe the state of science journalism in the UK. In 2008 Robin McKie, the Observer's long-serving science editor, said, “science inevitably comes in peaks and troughs,” adding “We are currently in a trough.”Science and journalism is needed. Both. One should get the science right but it is not journalism if you reflect only one side of an argument, no matter how strong, or how much of a consensus there may be. It might be unpopular to say, and may be alien to some scientists, but journalism in a democracy in a free society is more precious than science. Whatever one’s stance one should criticise, highlight errors, make a counterbalancing case if it will stand up, but don’t censor, even by elimination, because if that is done, we risk losing something far more precious than science. Journalists should portray where the weight of evidence lies. But that is the least they should do. Journalism is more, and some in the BBC still remember that.Feedback: david.whitehouse@netzerowatch.com