science


Guardian: Comment is Free: The media’s addiction to controversy can seriously damage your health

Wednesday, 13 August 2008, 07:17

Peter Wilby: "A coincidence of events does not prove a causal connection. Nevertheless, an excellent book by Tammy Boyce of Cardiff University - Health, Risk and News - shows British press stories about MMR and its dangers climbed steeply from 1998 and peaked in 2002."

Continue Reading Comments

 Saturday, 28 June 2008, 19:25 Comments

NHS Behind the Headlines calls BS on the Star and Express: "This study cannot be taken as evidence that eating chocolate, and specifically Mars bars, will reduce your risk of bowel cancer, or any other type of cancer, or that it is ‘good for you’."

 Thursday, 5 June 2008, 12:43 Comments

"By monitoring the signals from 100,000 mobile-phone users … a team from Northeastern University … has worked out some apparently universal laws of human motion." Commenters are not impressed.

 Friday, 2 May 2008, 20:23 Comments

Ben Goldacre was on the Today programme this morning to rip into the "man regrows finger with pixie dust" churnalism story that did the rounds this week.

 Tuesday, 18 March 2008, 06:54 Comments

The State of the Media report: if one were to have watched five hours of cable news, one would have seen about … 1 minute and 25 seconds about the environment … 1 minute about science and technology…

The plural of anecdote is not data — even when it’s ‘crowdsourced’

Tuesday, 11 March 2008, 18:05

I really like what the Times does online, but I must say that Roy Greenslade’s analysis of today’s Times splash is right on the money.

It doesn’t take university-level stats to know that self-selecting samples cannot be extrapolated to populations. An online vote touted as “a new kind of interactive poll” is no different than the sort of phone-in vote that papers have run for years.

It’s a very clever way of creating a very big collection of anecdotes, but to call it a “poll”, interactive or not, is misleading.

My favourite bit (in the printed editon) was this: “The poll, which attracted 2,476 responses, is novel because it reflects not just hard statistical data, but people’s observations and anxieties about the state of the economy”.

Eh? “Hard statistical data”? Where? Methinks the “just” was superfluous.

Further down (in a tiny boxout at the foot of the jump on page 4) communities editor Tom Whitwell provides the disclaimer that should have been right up in paragraph two — the story “does not have the statistical rigour of an opinion poll”.

The Times isn’t the first newspaper to report its online votes as if they were some sort of survey, of course. But to sacrifice the intellectual rigour of a story for the sake of fostering online “community” or experimenting with “crowdsourcing” is a very strange set of journalistic priorities indeed.

I wonder how many letters will flood in tomorrow from the Royal Statistical Society and various OxBridge dons.

The obligatory Google Map is very pretty, though.

Comments

 Tuesday, 22 January 2008, 09:24 Comments

Scientific American made conjoined twins out of [Journalism 2.0 and Science 2.0.] last week with its latest experiment in networked journalism: an article about networked science.

 Saturday, 20 October 2007, 09:17 Comments

Ben Goldacre on blogs and newspaper science journalism: "This transparency and referencing is a huge feature and something blogs share with academia, but not with mainstream media, who could always previously rely simply on their natural authority."

 Friday, 12 October 2007, 21:08 Comments

"The proliferation of blogs written by scientists (biology blogs being the most popular, followed by physics and climatology) means that the scientific discourse that used to take place behind lab doors is now open to everyone. "

 Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 19:23 Comments

"So where does the renewed scare about the MMR vaccine come from? This is where the reporting becomes more difficult to assess."

 Tuesday, 1 May 2007, 09:52 Comments

Bee-blogger Turlough looks at the remarkable coverage of colony collapse disorder among the national newspapers.

 Saturday, 7 April 2007, 10:28 Comments

RSS feed for a service countering cases of dodgy medical journalism.

(Read more: Journalism, medicine, science)

 Saturday, 7 April 2007, 10:26 Comments

Ben Goldacre: “many media stories—especially the dramatic and misleading ones—are based on unpublished research, conference presentations, briefings by “mavericks,” or press releases, all of which are tricky primary sources to track down, and whic