It's not just the "Fox News Devil": Fighting Bias with Objectivity and Respect for the Reader

            I think at an idea central to this concept is the confirmation bias.  When people look at a source like Fox News (or MSNBC, or the Huffington Post, for that matter), we are looking for information that confirms our current feelings and beliefs.  I would assume that many Fox News viewers do not hold liberal views about policy, the environment, government, or social issues, and that when they see a story on fox News that supports their position, they are more likely to believe it than someone with more moderate views.  I think the idea of “fair and balanced” is more of a spin tactic than a true statement about the nature of Fox News (or any news outlet for that matter)’s reporting.  I think it is tough for a news outlet, whose primary directive is to retain viewers and make money through advertisement and viewership, to actively challenge the viewpoints of its faithful.  When people’s beliefs are challenged, they may be more likely to change the channel, which leads to lost revenue.  Balancing budgets does not make for balanced news, and it’s hardly fair to the viewer when a network’s profit margin is placed above the potential benefit of trying to be as objective as possible.  Unfortunately, anyone who relies exclusively on a major news network for their information is going to be misinformed in some way, whether it’s the fault of simple omissions or getting the news from a source that wants to influence public belief to its agenda. 

            Challenging previously held beliefs is a source of cognitive dissonance, and we know very well that cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.  But, that’s where the learning happens: at the end of our comfort zones. When our previous beliefs do not “line up” with new information, it is sometimes difficult for us to process.  When our beliefs are challenged, it sometimes sets off a train of re-evaluation; “Does my change of belief on this subject affect my other ideas about the world?”        

            An example could be challenging the belief that climate change is not a potentially disastrous global problem.  Perhaps if someone were to challenge that belief, they would be able to challenge others as well.  Challenging the beliefs about climate change could lead people to challenge and perhaps change their ideas about leading sustainable lives, driving their cars less or carpooling, using more energy efficient appliances, and perhaps even joining advocacy groups to increase awareness in their neighborhoods.

            The willingness to challenge those long held beliefs is the key, and this brings me back to one of my first posts.  When individuals are willing to challenge their previous beliefs, they often adopt a new belief in its place.  Our job as science writers is to make science and information accessible to those who wish to challenge their views or replace antiquated ones.  When we make the information accessible and clear in a way that doesn’t alienate or belittle those with different views, we are ensuring that individuals who wish to change their views will feel like they are accessing objective, meaningful information.  We need to make the information available to those people who want to change, and it is our responsibility to be the most objective writers we possibly can to ensure that our readers (and potential “converts”) are getting the most unbiased information we can give. 

Is "balanced" always "fair"?

            As we discussed balance during the last class, I was intrigued by Dr. Edwards’ idea of the difference between “balanced” and “fair”.  It is “fair” to our readers to be unconditionally balanced in reporting?  Is it fair to report two perspectives on a hot-button issue that affects the health of our readers?  I really do not think that it is fair to the readers to represent the side of research that has not been supported by numerous studies.  What if we were to represent Freud’s viewpoints along with newer, more supported research about interpersonal interaction?  The problem with representing these “fringe” or outdated theories as truth is that it presents the risk that individuals with limited science knowledge will accept that fringe perspective as equally valid to the perspective that has been supported by countless studies. 

            To illustrate the dangers or overvaluing these fringe beliefs, I would like to present a hypothetical situation.  Let’s take a man who finished high school but has not attended an undergraduate institution (not to say that individuals who choose not to get a bachelor’s degree are inferior, but, depending upon their interests and occupation, they may have fewer opportunities to access scientific material or dialogue).  Let’s say that he has a child who is experiencing gastrointestinal distress.  He goes to his trusty computer and types in “stomach problems and children”.  And then, let’s say he comes across an article that says his child might have a mild case of food poisoning, or his child could have the beginning stages of autism.  Both of these causes are linked to gastrointestinal distress, but the claims of gastrointestinal distress being linked to autism are highly debatable.  If this possibility were presented with no caveat, this father might immediately schedule long and expensive tests with a pediatric specialist, which could break the bank if not covered by insurance. 

            As science writers, we need to be careful how we’re representing the information.  It’s okay to mention the “other side” of an issue, particularly if the other side has some credence.  For example, it would be completely irresponsible to represent intelligence as completely genetically heritable (nature) without bringing up the environmental factors that contribute to the development of intelligence (nurture).  When faced with a situation like this, science writers should certainly represent the other view.  However, when representing the other view would confuse readers or cloud their understanding of the issue, one must tread very carefully.  A balanced approach is not always fair to the reader, and when science writers are aware that reporting the other side of their issue may jeopardize their obligation to be fair to their readers, they must write in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the readers.  It is important to still challenge the reader and inspire him or her to think deeply, but we also need to be aware that treating all views equally is irresponsible and can leave the reader more confused than when he or she started the piece. 

Stand up and say it: YOU are a scientist.

                Drawing a scientist might have gone differently for me than it went for most people.  I had talked earlier in the day to one of the students who spent her winter break in Costa Rica with the biology department, and consequently the idea of scientists going out into the world to test hypotheses, chase animals, and collect data was fresh in my mind when I drew my two scientists.  The first drawing features my friend who spent time in Costa Rica.  She’s outside at night with a net, looking to catch some bats.  She is wearing some outdoorsy gear: shorts, a t-shirt, and hiking boots, and is pointing excitedly at some sort of horribly mutated bat (the victim of my sub-par art skills).   This drawing of my friend speaks to some of my attitudes about science and who can “do science”.  I think that scientific aptitude is not limited by a degree, and is not determined by the letters preceding one’s name.  My friend is one of the most scientifically literate, inquisitive people out there, and I think that drawing her on her Costa Rica trip was my way of voicing that idea.

                                     This bat may or may not have been exposed to radiation, causing its wings to took strikingly like muscle-y arms. 

            I drew a second scientist because I wanted to draw a more “traditional” scientist.  This is also an illustration from that Costa Rica trip.  Yes, that is Dr. Robert Dawley looking at an iguana and in danger of falling on a cactus (which, I was told, he did fall on after looking at the iguana).  This drawing of a scientist might look a little bit more like the “traditional” idea of what a scientist might be: he has curly hair, glasses, he might be a little clumsy (as suggested by the cactus), and is absorbed in his work.  But, he’s also out in the hot Costa Rican sun and teaching others about his scientific focus, so I think that this drawing of a scientist still differs from the norm. 

Dr. Dawley and an iguana.  He looks like our more traditional conception of a scientist because 

his hair is, in reality, a little crazy.  I wish you could see the iguana in greater detail, because it is a triumph. 

            My good friend Will also drew a scientist for me.  His drawing was astoundingly detailed, and much better than my awful “artwork”.  His drawing featured a man in his mid-thirties standing in a lab, holding an Erlenmeyer Flask, looking thoughtful and surrounded by microscopes, machines, and chemicals.  The scientist is young and handsome-looking, which defies conventional beliefs about scientists, but he is also looking aloof and pensive, which I think reflects some more “traditional” ideas about science.  When I asked Will what the different machines he had drawn were, he said “I’m really not sure, I thought it looked cool.”  I think that Will’s drawing speaks to some attitudes that we hold about science and scientists: that science is “cool”, but we’re not exactly sure about the science and the mechanics involved.   When most people think about scientists, they might be thinking of a social conception of what a scientist does and what he or she looks like.  Will is a humanities major, and so has had one science class in his time here.  He has not had that much exposure to scientists at Ursinus, and I think this has caused him to lean more heavily on society’s conception of what a scientist might look like.  

            I think that’s the crux of the problem with society’s mistrust of science: a lack of exposure.  We have trouble seeing scientists as regular people who put their pants on one leg at a time (until someone invents a contraption to streamline pants wearing, that is), because we don’t see much of scientists in the public sphere.  When we hear about a scientific discovery, we tend to hear more about the discovery itself and what it means than about the scientists behind it.  For example, many people are talking about the baby that a research team from John’s Hopkins, the University of Mississippi, and UMass that may have cured a baby infected with HIV.  Unfortunately, people don’t take the time to learn that Dr. Deborah Persaud, the lead author of the paper is a working mom with kids just like many women in America and around the globe.  She has to worry about whose day it is to pick the kids up at daycare (in fact, according to a news article, she once almost missed a party given in her honor because she was convinced it was her day to pick up her toddlers from daycare), she has to do her taxes, and she reads gossip magazines.

            We as a nation need to make the notion that scientists are regular people more accessible to everyone.  By perpetuating the stereotype that scientists (and by extension, science) are intimidating, we are making it more difficult for young people to overcome their reservations about going into the sciences.  As science journalists, it should be our responsibility to make sure that science and scientists are presented as interesting and accessible rather than distant, unfeeling, and cold.  I would strive to do this by finding relatable personal characteristics for the scientists I interview for writing.  I want to present not only the science, but the human behind that science; maybe they tell a good joke or have a great collection of coffee mugs or you can hear the excitement in their voice as they talk about their research.  The more characteristics that readers can identify with, the greater the chance that they will pursue their interests further and consider science as something within reach instead of something reserved for those with an advanced degree.