Reading a daily newspaper is terrifying experience. A constant barrage
of concerns assaults us as we skim from one story to the next, feeling
a general desire not only to know what is happening in the world, but
also what we might do to make life better for us, by whatever means
most relevant. Unfortunately, so much of what we read is exaggerated,
misleading, or flat-out wrong.
Errors of many types enter into media stories for many reasons, but
very rarely because of a flagrant bias of the journalist. The trouble
is, reporting is difficult. And daily news cycles in underfunded
newsrooms at papers where mission statements involve profits to
shareholders and nothing about news, only exacerbate the situation.
Journalists often don't have time to investigate a story sufficiently
deeply, and even when they do, they often don't have the appropriate
training to get to the bottom of some of the issues.
These problems are worst when the reporting involves the results of
studies, surveys and statistics. Every statistic can be used to tell a
multitude of stories. Every study has multiple aspects that can used as
the foundation of a story. Every survey hinges delicately on issues
such as precisely how the questions are worded, what order they are
asked, and the physical location of the survey. Without exploring all
of these types of issues, it is extremely difficult for a journalist to
present a fair and balanced view of any claim made in a press release
or executive summary of the latest surveys.
It Ain't Necessarily So explores many of these ideas, with the main
points illustrated by case studies from the print media in the US. The
tales told in the book are cautionary, revealing, inspiring and
sometimes scary. You'll come away from the book with a much more
skeptical view of the news, when it comes to the reporting of studies
and statistics.
There is no doubt that many journalists could benefit from reading this
book. One of its strengths is looking at the reporting of science and
social science stories, where the press release version of the story
often doesn't reflect the reality of the study particularly well.
Unfortunately, the science backgrounds of many journalists asked to
cover these stories are not strong and it is very easy to get lost in
the flow of information without a few guiding principles to help ask
the right questions. This book does a decent job of identifying what a
journalist should watch for.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the book is that it does its job of
creating a skeptical reader too well. By the end, you'll be doubting
every sentence in the book itself. Unfortunately, you find that the
book breaks many of its own rules about judicious, skeptical reporting.
Perhaps it is impossible to write a book of this length without some of
these errors. You could go into each case study in immensely more
detail and do a better job, but then be forced to cut down the breadth
of the text, which would be a shame. Some of the particular claims made
by the authors do not stand up to the scrutiny they recommend,
especially on some politically volatile issues, where there almost
seems to be a political bias lying behind the stance taken by the
authors. Perhaps it is not such a bias, and just a case of the authors
not sufficiently exploring the cases they discuss, one of the key
reasons for many errors in reporting. I won't go into a detailed
rebuttal of the book's errors, but note that you should be very
skeptical of the approach taken in the case study of global climate
change reporting.
Overall, the book is extremely useful and entertaining, but due to the
errors, journalists would be advised to do as the authors say, not as
they do.
Buy from Amazon |
Full book list
5:02:01 PM Your views []