The virtues–and perils–of contrarian stories (*Update):
[Via Knight Science Journalism Tracker]
A fascinating story form Reuters, NPR and many others: Smokers who quit have a 70 percent increased risk (compare to people who never smoked) of developing diabetes.
How could that be? Does smoking protect against diabetes? What is it in cigarette smoke that could increase the risk when it’s withdrawn from the body. As I say–fascinating!
Except that it’s not. The ex-smokers gained weight, and that’s probably what caused the increased risk, say the authors of the study.
Kate Kelland of Reuters gets to the explanation in the second graf, and follows that quickly with the researchers saying nobody should use the findings to justify continuing to smoke. But maybe even the second graf isn’t high enough for mention of the weight gain. What this study says to me is: Gaining weight increases the risk of diabetes. That’s not exactly news. (Charles Dick also gets an “editing” byline on this story. A quick walk through the Reuters site shows that a lot of stories now have editors’ bylines. Could someone at Reuters email me with an explanation? I’ve never seen that before. I apologize if it’s been going on at Reuters for years and I’ve missed it. If this isn’t unique, it’s certainly unusual.) *Update: A Reuters source points me to the company’s journalism handbook, which says that these “sign-offs,” as Reuters calls them, “demonstrate accountability and also give clients a contact point if they have problems with a story.” And note Charlie’s comment below.
Richard Knox at NPR likewise does a perfectly fine story, but it amounts to the same thing. A lot of other news outlets weigh in with their own versions of the story–the BBC, The Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, Business Week, and many others. I’m not going to link to them all, because it’s not the stories that interest me.
What intrigues me is: Why did everybody write this story, which seems to amount to very little? Most readers understand that weight gain can lead to diabetes, and all science writers ought to know that.
Here’s my suspicion: Many science writers love contrarian stories. Remember the stories about genetically engineered tobacco plants being use to produce drugs, even, someday, drugs that might fight cancer? Cool, or what?
[More]
The media purposefully confuses its readers in order to tell a better story. People do not get diabetes from quitting smoking. They get it from gaining weight. But the writers make it sound like continuing to smoke is better for people than getting diabetes from stopping.
Misleading in order to get people to read the article. Dog bites man stories are not interesting. Man bites dog is. Nothing new here but it is refreshing to see a science writer admit as much, especially with this personal anecdote:
Once, when I was covering the American Heart Association annual meeting for the AP, the local buro went to a hamburger joint in the building where the buro was located (not a lot of enterprise involved), and photographed a few cardiologists chowing down on huge burgers. The implication of the accompanying story was that cardiologists were ignoring their own advice, stuffing themselves with the artery-blockers they so sternly and unpleasantly warned us about.
The buro–and the general desk in New York–thought it was a perfectly fine, light story. Except that the implications of the story were wrong. Anyone who has been to these meetings can see (I don’t have data for this) that cardiologists are a lean, mean group. When the heart docs are in town, there is near gridlock on the jogging paths and in the hotel exercise rooms. While some of them might be caught red-handed in a burger joint now and then, these are not people who eschew their own advice.
I tried to make that argument to the general desk, and I got exactly nowhere. Which is why I’m exacting my revenge right now, right here, exposing the whole sordid mess!
One reason that MSM are such poor disseminators of scientific information – A good man bites dog story always wins, even when it is wrong and misleading. Then the poor scientists are blamed for not properly educating the audience. Doing a better job of speaking would be good for scientists to do but not unless the media makes substantial changes.
Chris Mooney has some useful points but I think his conversation would have more impact if he would work with the general desks at newspapers, etc. and had them correct their policy of running a contrarian story even when it is misleading. Until that happens, it does not matter HOW good a communicator a scientist is.
Ironically, Mooney is a Knight Science Scholar, which also funds the Tracker. Perhaps Charlie Petit at the tracker could talk with Mooney.
Technorati Tags: Science
