One definition of journalism: A bunch of English majors trying to write about numbers.
A bit of a stretch? Probably. But a lot of journalism is trying to make sense of the world we live in and report on trends and indicators that show whether progress is being made. We take solace in numbers and science. They’re hard and seemingly objective.
Maybe not. There’s a fascinating article in American Scientist about the train wrecks that frequently happen when politics and science meet. The main point is that science is so broad and so deep that scientific measurements and observations can too often be used to arrive at competing conclusions.
What we choose to measure and how we choose to measure it inform the results we get.
There’s not really a good alternative to eliminating research from the body of evidence used to make political decisions or to back up newspaper stories. What this author pushes for is better disclosure, that the experts not paint themselves as unbiased observers. And also this: first clarify the values and goals, then bring in the science to see how we get there and how we are doing.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
Who was it who said there’s lies, damn lies and statistics?
Now you’re talking. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if science—and scientists—were taken more seriously in the political process?” Yes. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if non-scientists, too, were taken more seriously in the political process? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if not only did we care about the facts and figures and their various interpretations but also about the intangibles that cannot be scientifically proven. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we sought the truth rather than just the facts. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if journalists were as concerned about truth as creative writers.
But “What this author pushes for is better disclosure, that the experts not paint themselves as unbiased observers. And also this: first clarify the values and goals, then bring in the science to see how we get there and how we are doing” Which author? Daniel Sarewitz or you? If you mean: What I am pushing for . . . , why don’t you say so in clear American English? Quit being so much “the journalist” that you forget how to write!
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.