The 7 Deadly Sins Of Science Journalism

  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of oversimplification and overworked cliches in science journalism. The author expresses frustration with these tendencies and questions why they continue to be used. They also highlight the importance of accurate facts and providing context in scientific reporting. However, the conversation takes a humorous turn as they joke about the irony of using overworked cliches in the article itself and suggest drastic measures for improving scientific journalism.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
22,189
6,857
Does the author get it right? Anything left out?

Oversimplifying/getting it wrong really irks me, as does Overworked cliches!

Could pond scum power our future? Why do so many studies "shine light on" interesting questions or "pave the way" for new inventions? When did a Higgs boson become promoted to a God particle? Where do all these "magic bullets" and "perfect storms" and "holy grails" and "missing links" keep coming from? Why do we always say DNA is a blueprint and why are those shifty paradigms always shifting? Heck, who knows. I just know I read it somewhere and it sounded right and I didn't have time to think of a new metaphor, so I thought I'd use it too.

http://www.science20.com/parkinson_report/seven_deadly_sins_science_journalism
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ironic that he would complain about overworked cliches in an article titled with an overworked cliche! :smile:

Of these seven sins, the worst is error. I don't mind the rest so much as long as the facts are stated correctly. But facts without context can be just as bad, so oversimplication can be as bad as getting it wrong.
 
  • #3
Ivan Seeking said:
Ironic that he would complain about overworked cliches in an article titled with an overworked cliche! :smile:

Or he could be implying public executions for poor scientific journalism?

The trouble is the experiment is really complicated, see, like really really complicated -- in fact, I think it might even be black magic -- so we're not going to talk about the experiment, we're just going to talk about the potential implications.

:smile: that's hilarious
 

FAQ: The 7 Deadly Sins Of Science Journalism

What are the 7 deadly sins of science journalism?

The 7 deadly sins of science journalism are sensationalism, cherry-picking, misrepresentation, lack of context, false balance, lack of peer review, and plagiarism. These are all practices that can greatly harm the accuracy and integrity of science journalism.

How does sensationalism affect science journalism?

Sensationalism, or the exaggeration of scientific findings to create a more dramatic story, can greatly distort the truth and mislead the public. It can also lead to the spread of false information and misconceptions about scientific topics.

What is false balance in science journalism?

False balance occurs when a journalist presents two opposing views on a scientific topic as equally valid, even when one is supported by overwhelming evidence and the other is not. This can create a false sense of debate and controversy where there is none, and can lead to the public being misinformed about the weight of scientific evidence.

Why is lack of peer review a concern in science journalism?

Lack of peer review refers to the absence of expert scientists reviewing and verifying the accuracy of a journalist's reporting on scientific studies. This can lead to the spread of misinformation and inaccuracies, as well as the promotion of studies that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

How can journalists avoid committing the 7 deadly sins of science journalism?

Journalists can avoid committing the 7 deadly sins of science journalism by fact-checking their sources, seeking out multiple perspectives, providing context and nuance, and consulting with experts in the field. It is also important for journalists to prioritize accuracy and integrity over sensationalism and clickbait headlines.

Similar threads

Intro Physics Bad pop science books ("Galileo's Finger") vs. good?
Replies
8
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top