From: buurt1@rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl (Jasper Kips)
Subject: Re: Discussion of science coverage
Organization: Leiden University Faculty of Social Sciences
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:30:26 +0100

In article <1992Jul20.013329.19766@regina.cs.uregina.ca>,
brownw@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Bill Brown) writes: > In article
<18JUL199222293238@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
(Charles Packer) writes: >> 
>>Does it really matter whether the media get it right about
>>quakes? Quakes can't be predicted yet, so the short term value
>> [deletions]
> 
> I have taken a geology course in university, but I don't pretend to
> be a geologist, just maybe a little more informed than Joe Public.
> I was also in the media for seven years.  I happen to think that it
> *does* matter.  As was previously mentioned, it is believed that
> < 10% of the population would understand a technical explanation of
> an earthquake.  So 90% of the people wouldn't [want to] understand,
> they'd only want to know effects, etc., i.e. how it relates to them.
> 
> But since, (IMHO) the non-informed, average person on the street is
> very likely to believe the media, they (the media) are responsible to
> be correct.  In many situations, if there is no other discrepancy and
> counter information from a more viable source, it will generally be
> believed.  If reporters are always in error (as far as quakes, anyway)
> then people will be unwittingly and constantly misguided.
> 
> As someone once said, (and I wish I knew who it was) -
> What people believe is the truth more important than the truth.
> 
> The owness for knowing correct information must lie with the individual,
> but too many people trust news reporters implicitly.
> 
Speaking as a reporter, factually writing as a reporter, it is easy in 
my opinion. It DOES matter. Why?, well first of all a fairly large 
section of the population get their "facts" of science out of radio, 
television or newspapers. As a reporter you have a duty to that public 
to inform them as good as possible.
Secondly, and this is a really reporter-argument, it is my credibility
that is on the line. not only with the general public, but also with my 
sources, in this instance scientists. If the public or my sources feel 
that I'm doing a lousy job, then why notice my job, and therfore me 
anyway.
Last, and this is a controversial argument, at least in Holland, there 
is the educational value of science reporting. A good example is 
reporting concerning AIDS. This has a great interest in the general 
public. However because of misreporting, and some of it is very 
persisting, there still are misconceptions about AIDS and HIV, which 
frankly, scare the hell out of me. If, and only if, a science reporter 
tries to be a good reporter, tries to act in a scientfic manner and 
tries to falsify everything a scientist says, then you can state he/she 
is doing a good job. If however he/she uncritically reports whatever any 
given scientist thinks at any given moment, well he/she (the rporter) is 
nothing more than a bulletin board.
Remember for a reporter a scientist is a reliable and trustworthy 
source, so trustworthy that the reporter tends to stop thinking for 
him/herself

Jasper Kips
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:811 sci.geo.geology:1701 misc.headlines:4958