Scientific Controversy in the New Zealand Mass Media Laura Sessions Mass Communication and Journalism Plant and Microbial Sciences University of Canterbury Thanks to: J. Tully, D. Kelly, Royal Society of NZ, Fulbright New Zealand
Corngate: Independent Verification
Corngate: Evaluation of science Dr. Russell Poulter It seems that after four days, it still comes down to this, the same set of facts but a different interpretation and its unlikely the two sides will ever agree. --TVNZ Dr. Peter Wills
Do journalists in NZ: Independently verify scientific claims? Evaluate scientific evidence?
Methods Survey of 90 journalists Content analysisof news Interviews with 21 journalists
Who reports science in NZ? Survey of 90 journalists 21 newspapers 1 TV station 1 radio station Science defined broadly including: Agriculture Health and medicine Environment Technology
Who reports science in NZ? Survey of 90 journalists 64covered science Few specialists 4 journalists had science round Little time on science 91% spent < 15 h/week
Who reports science in NZ? Survey of 90 journalists Little background in science 89% had no science beyond secondary school Little experience reporting science 55% had reported science < 3 years
Who reports science in NZ? Survey of 90 journalists Journalists said verification important 64% said they check claims with 2nd scientist 73% said they get >1 perspective
Who reports science in NZ? Survey of 90 journalists Journalists said evaluation important 81% said media should give weight of evidence
What science is reported? Content analysis June 2000 June 2001 Sampled every 13th day 4 replicates of each day of the week 25 newspapers, 2 TV & 1 radio Only stories with scientific hypotheses
What science is reported? Content analysis Lots of science news 682 stories Average 24 per day Half about health/medicine
What science is reported? Content analysis (n=682 stories) Most stories were short 14 sentences average for print 3.6 minutes average for broadcast 19% print stories were 5 sentences 65% from overseas
What science is reported? Content analysis (n=682 stories) Most stories had little verification 32% had >1 source 24% showed claim was verified
What science is reported? Content analysis (n=682 stories) Controversy uncommon 15% stories had 2 or more different opinions Evaluation uncommon 4% stories used weight of evidence approach
Summary: NZ science news Lots of reporters but Few specialists Little time or background Lots of science news but Most about health & medicine Stories short Most from overseas
Summary: NZ science news Verification Journalists: verification important News: mostly one-source stories Evaluation Journalists: weight of evidence important News: little evaluation of evidence
Why are verification and evaluation uncommon? In-depth interviews with 21 journalists
Why little verification? Interviews with 21 journalists Organisational constraints Many stories are short Commercial imperative Journalists have limited time
Why little verification? Interviews with 21 journalists Attitudes of journalists They trust peer review Believe science is uncontroversial Assume opposition will emerge
Why little verification? Interviews with 21 journalists Journalists do not dig for controversy Science is controversial when identified by Scientists The public Other media
Why little evaluation? Interviews with 21 journalists Journalists said they can t evaluate science Limited time Limited expertise in science Little experience reporting science (High turnover of rounds)
Why little evaluation? Interviews with 21 journalists They said they shouldn t evaluate science Journalists should be Neutral Unbiased Fair Balanced
Should media evaluate science? Interviews with 21 journalists Public should make up their own minds it s not for us to decide what people should or shouldn t read. Readers should be able to make up their own minds. And if an outrageous claim is reported, or maverick science, or science that is not generally accepted, we should still publish the opinion of the scientist who is making the particular claim.
Should media evaluate science? Interviews with 21 journalists Journalists say its not my job if you wish journalists to evaluate scientific claims, you must first convince us that that is our role, because I do not believe that it is
What is the media s role? Interviews with 21 journalists Translate complex information (8) Advocate for science (5) Reflect current debate (4) Guide the public (1)
Conclusions Journalists say they verify and evaluate News suggests they rarely do Limited by lack of time, expertise & experience Journalists also question role of media
Role of the media Peer review verifies claims Scientists identify further controversy Media reports all sides Public decides who to believe
Evaluation of science by the media?
Further questions Is this unique to New Zealand? Could the NZ media work differently? Should they evaluate science more?