I remember the debate vividly.
The notion that if your kids have the MMR jab, there’s a chance they get autism, was being touted around by the press. There was one problem with this. It was the opinion of ONE scientist.
The whole point of science is that it constantly calls into question theories which are then reviewed by other scientists. It’s only when there is a general consensus that the theory is put forward as policy. (Kind of like the way democracy works).
It never fails to amaze me how ignorant the press can be when it comes to understanding how science works. Roll on seven years and this kind of debate has reared its ugly head with the dreaded swine flu and its treatment Tamiflu. The press have once again resorted to taking the advice of ONE paper in a journal to stoke up some public hysteria. The point of peer review is that other experts give their opinions on the research for a consensus to be reached.
But then again, I suppose that doesn’t get headlines like this:
Great analysis – but I’m afraid hysteria creates headlines; headlines sell papers and paper sales pay salaries.
My questions are:
1. Is there ever any way of achieving ‘pure’ journalism – or are papers bound by the fundamental necessity to hit profit margins, thus functioning as a business tool rather than an insightful reporting medium?
2. Has the recession made hysteria worse? Also, when the economic situation improves, will hysterical reporting die down?
Posted by: Steve George | August 13, 2009 at 06:07 PM