Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


salon premiumfind out morehelplog in
Salon.com


[Arts & Entertainment][ Books ][ Comics ][ Life ][ News ][ People ][ Politics ][ Sex ][ Technology ][ Audio ]

Article Finder
Books Review


 
book cover


"It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, et al.
Three self-styled experts point out the myriad ways that the media gets science wrong.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Appell

July 2, 2001 | Journalists are the whipping boys of the information age, and lord knows they deserve it. Operating in a world far too subtle and complex to be reduced to their paltry formulas, they misinterpret statistics, misunderstand research and mishandle the truth, usually in service of their own political and social objectives. They choose topics that advance their liberal agenda and ignore any truths that defy it. They decide which angle to cover and which perspectives to suppress, who's on the side of good and who's sold their soul to the devil. You can trust them about as far as you can throw them, and given how slippery they are, that sure isn't very far.

But have no fear, for experts have arrived to set us straight, in the form of the Statistical Assessment Service -- STATS for short. As part of its noble service, STATS offers us the new book "It Ain't Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter, a trio of social scientists. The book gets to the scientific heart of the journalistic matter, unraveling dozens of science stories that have appeared in print over the last 10 years to reveal "the means by which savvy news consumers can defend themselves."



It Ain't Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality

By David Murray, Joel Schwartz, S. Robert Lichter

Rowman & Littlefield
249 pages
Nonfiction

Buy it



Print story


E-mail story


For example, are trick-or-treaters being sliced to pieces by razors in apples and poisoned with tainted licorice? "Halloween candy-tampering is a myth," the authors write. Since 1958, all 76 reports of candy-tampering have been mistaken or fraudulent. The three reported deaths attributed to sabotaged Halloween treats were ultimately traced back to a lie to cover up an uncle's drug stash, an intentional poisoning of a child by his father and sensational reports of a girl's fatal seizure resulting from a congenital heart condition.

But "It Ain't Necessarily So" doesn't limit itself to disproving popular urban legends. Are you worried about species dying out as a result of global warming? Don't. Those scare stories are the doing of green scribblers who cherry-pick the scientific journals for alarming factoids and who work in cahoots with Volvo-driving scientists who skew their results in an effort to oppose progress and capitalism. Alarming increases in infectious diseases? Relax, those numbers can be written off to gays getting AIDS and the aging of the population. Magazine and newspaper articles saying anything to the contrary are just the media's way of pushing for yet more government money to be thrown after bad. Breast cancer skyrocketing, sperm counts plummeting, racial discrimination against mortgage applicants running rampant -- just watch the media spin.

The experts debunking these reports go by names designed to reassure, names like The Greening Earth Society (we're all in favor of verdancy) and The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (Harvard, of course, knows everything). The last decade has seen the rise of many such groups, here to dice and slice the news and point out its many shortcomings. Staffed with people holding doctorates (in at least some discipline), expressing patent objectivity and publishing newsletters to promote their side of the latest stories, such groups are ever ready to take calls from journalists looking for help in understanding a scientific paper or in search of a ready quote from someone on the other side of an issue's fence.

The trouble is, many of these groups are industry fronts, pushing industry agendas. The Greening Earth Society, for example, which promotes the benefits of carbon dioxide, was created by the Western Fuels Association, according to the Integrity in Science database created by The Center for Science in the Public Interest. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has received funding from numerous corporate sources, including unrestricted grants from Amoco, Dow Chemical Company, General Motors, Monsanto, Procter & Gamble and many others.

. Next page | A dodgy "debunking" of global warming
1, 2





 
 




 
 
____
 




 
 
____
 
   
 
____
 
 
Current Stories
  • History is bunk after all Much of what we're taught has been twisted to suit someone's needs
    By Laura Miller
  • How blogs changed everything As old media struggles for relevance, the once-maligned blogosphere proves it's as transformative as the telephone
    By Scott Rosenberg
  • The un-American way of life A controversial new history of Communism suggests that most everything we think we know about it is wrong
    By Andrew O'Hehir
  • Gay men go to hell "God Says No" author James Hannaham talks about religious repression, life in the closet -- and sex in the bathroom
    By Sarah Hepola
  •  

    shim shim shim shim shim shim shim
    shim
    shim

    Maya Angelou reads from "The Heart of a Woman"

    shim
    shim



    Salon  Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


    Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
    Politics | Sex | Tech & Business and The Free Software Project | Audio
    Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Gear


    Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
    Copyright 2005 Salon.com


    Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
    Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
    E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service