Why should we hold journalists to a higher standard than science journals? It was only a week and a half ago that JAMA did the same thing: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698
Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
21–30 of 96 posts
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?
> Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from? What a weird selection criterion. It rejects all the professional scientists, by your description.
It doesn't if the scientist's income isn't directly tied to their writing, or the opinions they reach.
I would exclude, on that basis, a research scientist for an organisation, particularly a conflicts or regulatory-opposing organisation (advocacy, litigation).
A teaching position that doesn't require publication, and a fair number of governmental organisations, might qualify. The latter depending much on the institutional incentives.
I'd also be somewhat more partial to independent research groups not immediately supported by industrial concerns, though again in the field of politics you're going to have numerous incentives.
I'm finding Robert Anton Wilson's formulation, Celine's 2nd Law, useful: accurate information is only possible in a non-punishing situation. I'd extend that: the only reward for information can be based on accuracy of that information, not the suitability of its results (e.g., shoot and/or fete the messenger).
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#23Why should we hold journalists to a higher standard than science journals? It was only a week and a half ago that JAMA did the same thing: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698
Several times I've asked authors in JAMA articles for the data (synthetic is fine!) + code used to generate the results. A few have been polite enough to respond and decline.
Also, notice many of JAMA's published graphs on Twitter and in papers have no visual representation of uncertainty. Point estimates are fairly bankrupt plotted by themselves.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#24I'd like to know how my drinking behaviour affects my mortality. And how that effect is compared to the consumption of tobacco, marijuana, participating in road traffic, jogging and overwight.
While it's clear that alcohol is not particular healthy, I feel the risk is negligible compared to other common behaviours. I like alcohol very much and I'd like to make a informed decision about it. But i dearly miss the curial, end-user friendly information.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?
> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones market…
> While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified.
That's in published, peer reviewed papers. The OP was talking about their blogs, which don't have any requirements like that.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?
> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones market…
But better not to confuse economists and scientists.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#27Why should we hold journalists to a higher standard than science journals? It was only a week and a half ago that JAMA did the same thing: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698
Just because some other group is also wrong doesn't mean it's okay.
They're both being held to the same standard, and they're both failing.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#28I'd like to know how my drinking behaviour affects my mortality. And how that effect is compared to the consumption of tobacco, marijuana, participating in road traffic, jogging and overwight. While it's clear that alcohol is not particular healthy, I feel the risk is negligible compared to other common behaviours. I like alcohol very much and I'd like to make a informed decision about it. But i dearly miss the curia…
About 3 drinks per day puts you from 1.5 to 3 times more likely to develop various cancers, according to:
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/al...
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#29I think modern journalism is like application development at a startup, except with even less QA. "Get it out!!! Get it out!!!" And since people will forget about the article in a few days anyway, as long as nobody who knows better and knows how to make the right noise about it and has enough energy, time, and incentive to actually do so reads it and starts the correction ball rolling, it's just, kinda... there. Archived to be read by no one but Google and someone doing a long tail search some years to come, hopefully with no more important purpose than writing a paper for school that again, will be disposed of, this time more thoroughly.
We just create so much crap for consumption. Even public broadcasting is full of the 24-72hr news cycle. I've written code that I was employed for where I was like, why are we doing this. I assume journalists are the same.
Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
#30I'd like to know how my drinking behaviour affects my mortality. And how that effect is compared to the consumption of tobacco, marijuana, participating in road traffic, jogging and overwight. While it's clear that alcohol is not particular healthy, I feel the risk is negligible compared to other common behaviours. I like alcohol very much and I'd like to make a informed decision about it. But i dearly miss the curia…
"Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption has been shown in several prospective studies to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and several cardiac outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in men "