Customer Reviews

It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Murray and co. do an excellent job of explaining how the results of scientic inquiry are reported in the mass media. The authors avoid the easy out of blaming things on politically motivated journalists, and take a more interesting path. Sometimes what we read in the press is the result of poor reporting; sometimes it's poor science; and, on occasion it may be the reflection of a writer's personal agenda. The book tells the kinds of errors that occur (confusing correlation with causation, poor sampling, etc.)

What makes the book compelling is the anecdotes used to make the points. The stories of contradictory reporting of scientific make for peculiarly amusing reading.

By understanding the types of reporting problems and their causes, people can be more intelligently skeptical about what they read or hear.

This is one of the most-used lies in the English language, and these authors demonstrate that another often-used whopper is "Studies Show That..." This book is a well-balanced and sensible expose of junk science and the misuse of "facts," especially by researchers and the mass media. But the authors do not claim anti-corporate bias as the only possible explanation. They show how the demands of journalists' jobs give them incentives to be lazy, careless, and all too quick to hype dramatic bad news in place of good news that isn't so interesting. Many actual facts are cited to prove the authors' points. One of the points they make by logical argument rather than factual proof, however, may be the most important of all: the intolerable smear that a researcher's "corporate funding" (which is often very tenuous, exercising little or no actual control over the researcher's activities) automatically invalidates his research! This tactic is often used today (as can be seen in one of the reviews below), but the only honest approach is to question a researcher's FINDINGS, not his MOTIVES. After all, as the authors point out, journalists (and certainly political activists) have their own agendas that give them strong incentives to fudge the truth; and the fact that their motivation is not pecuniary matters little to the only important question: how much truth is in what they say. Also, many researchers DO have a sort of vested interest of their own: they know that if their studies "prove" that a pressing problem exists, they'll get more funding to do further studies, so they won't actually have to go out and WORK for a living! Not surprisingly, their "studies" tend to find terrible problems everywhere. One gets the impression that there are so many new, horrendous health hazards now that a person would have to be lucky to reach old age. So why are people living longer and longer, if there are so many health dangers lurking everywhere? Read this excellent book and you won't be so quick to believe that all the junk science hype that's being quoted everywhere actually proves what it claims to prove.

There have been several books out lately about bias in the news, but they tend to focus on political bias. This book instead looks at the same concept--how news media have unwritten scripts that determine what is and what is not news, and how it is covered--but instead focuses on the reporting of research, both scientific and sociological. That's what makes this book worth reading even if you've read some others on media bias.

It was interesting to read about various reports on research, how seemingly conflicting reports came into being, how reports that are on the same topic would seem to get equal coverage but don't, how research with barely detectable results ends up being reported as earth-shattering discovery, and other such topics. The examples were informative, and the authors gave some tips on how to decipher what you read in the news...how to read between the lines, so to speak.

Some reviewers have dissed this book because the examples used are those which conservatives would find most satisfying to learn how media distorted research. Fortunately, most such reviewers have also acknowledged that the book is still worthy of reading due to the way it points out general methods for discerning accuracy in reporting. Still, I feel the "conservative bias" charge is unwarranted. Other books have documented well the powerful politically liberal scripts of mainstream news media; is it any surprise that there are so many examples of such bias in scientific reporting too? If news media carefully filter societal issues to only make their side look good, why would this not be done in reporting on research too? What I'm trying to say is, I am certain there are much more plentiful examples of this kind of thing for the conservative side. I would gladly welcome a book, though, that would reveal such shortcomings that would similarly satisfy liberals, for I simply want to know how things get distorted, whichever direction they get distorted.

My ranking of this book is a 3, which is "good" (see About Me for a complete description of my rating policy), meaning this is a book worth reading. Its weakness is that the authors' writing style is a bit dry and sometimes they repeat their point too much, making me mutter, "Okay, I get it already!" But these are minor drawbacks; the book is something consumers of news should definitely read.

Don't believe what you read in the popular press or hear on the media - that's the lesson affirmed by the authors. They review a gaggle of cases where the reportage of some issue or event was obviously filtered, through intent or incompetance, to fit the story the author wanted to state.

Rabid liberals who don't realize how far left the media has seemed to come will view this book as a subtle right-wing treatise. However, these are people who, like their reactionary counterparts, internally filter out anything that doesn't fit into their own paradigm, and they are better ignored. Nothing will help people who are too tilted in either direction, but this is not a reason to dismiss important work.

In all, this should be required reading for every newspaper and television reporter and editor and journalism student, not to mention every adult who wants to think independantly.

The media has an awesome power to mold public opinion and shape policy. This book not only sets the record straight on various issues through its examples (worth the reading just for that), but shows how to become better news consumers. The research is impressive, the writing made the reading easy and the perspectives gave me a whole new view of what I am reading, seeing and hearing in the media. This is a real eye opener.

Apparently some readers above do not like to have their own delusions pointed out. Anything that contradicts their cocoon world of warped "science" is the result of a vast conspiracy of corporations. Actually much of the so-called "science" baloney that is used to justify ever greater statist depredations works to diminsh the our freedoms.

The book is an excellent resource for the open minded to learn how to analyse pseudo-science. However, if you are already committed ideologically, like a number of the reviewers, to junk science justifications for having the State muck things up even more than they already are, I doubt that this book will change your mind.

That is because that is how science works. Any scientist of real integrity holds all beliefs tentatively. Any conclusions are held because the preponderance of evidence to that point suggests that it is the best current explanation. But real scientists are willing and able to change that belief if further evidence develops that contradicts their original conclusions. That is the scientific method. That you will learn about. That is what should be understood.

Not some dopey sophomoric myopic "true belief" in a politicized scare story on the environment.

Read it with an open mind. You may be surprised and actually learn something of lasting value about how to analyze stories about which you may not already have a firm prejudice in place.

....until you do a bit more research using numerous sources. This enlightening book serves to open one's eyes regarding polls, statistics and claims you'll hear on the nightly news, radio and newspaper. The authors' main thrust is that people should look into and understand the *methodology* of any such research/poll claims. "Be skeptical," in other words. Peer review of statistical/research claims should be evident in order for any such claims to hold some validity. Various case studies are used throughout the book -- the "rise" of rates of infectious diseases, spouse "abuse," education "results," the environment, racial issues and "poverty," just to name a few. Probably the most interesting chapter is the one on polls. The authors meticulously demonstrate that the mere *wording* of a poll can produce results that no one in their right mind would expect. (For example, a poll about the Holocaust that was worded with double negatives "revealed" that an astounding number of folk doubted the Nazi extermination policy.) So, when you see those latest Gallup results, be sure to check out the poll's questions!

PROS: Reminds people (over and over again) to be skeptical. It's objective and doesn't always side with one political agenda. It teaches general skepticism and intelligent reading of the news, polls, and scientific reports.

CONS: The book doesn't need to be so long. The first two pages of each chapter was all I needed to get the point. The rest is just details.

CONCLUSION: For those who love the details of how the media can mislead the public, this is a great book. For most of us, just browse this book and you'll get the idea.

It is more than curious that in a nation where most people avoid science courses in high school, most people also avidly absorb news stories based on scientific research.
That implies a high confidence among readers that reporters can adequately explain the proper import of research that the readers are unqualified to judge for themselves.
David Murray, Joel Schwartz and Robert Lichter suggest they ought to be less trusting.
There have been a number of accessible books debunking various scares that got a good press, notably the late Aaron Wildavsky's "But Is It True?" "It Ain't Necessarily So" takes a different tack.
Rather than assessing the validity of the scares themselves, the authors examine how newspapers covered a wide variety of stories, from global warming to the extent of domestic violence.
They found that quality was spotty, and the most prestigious papers were as likely to screw up as anyone else. (They ignored, quite properly, electronic "journalism.") Many stories were covered (in their view) adequately in one sheet and deplorably carelessly in another; and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was as likely to outperform The Washington Post as the other way around on a particular story.
The book is arranged in chapters of case studies, each chapter illustrating a different way news supposedly based on science can be misreported.
Topics include why worthy stories sometimes get little attention, why news mountains are heaped up out of research molehills, how statistics can be cooked, the pitfalls of surveys and of drawing conclusions by measuring proxies rather than the real thing, and various statistical alarums and excursions.
Their orientation is that the situation is not nearly as gloomy as we have been led to think.
"What if," they ask, "the magnitude of our daily dangers has been considerably overblown? What if, in fact, neither the underlying science nor the overlying headline . . . was quite what it seemed to be?"
Murray is director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, D.C.; Schwartz is a senior adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute; and Lichter is president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington.
Although their studies are of how news was covered, their method has the effect of also presenting evidence debunking various stories. (It is essential to read the endnotes, which make up nearly a fifth of the book and contain important details not in the main text.)
Most of these doused stories are what might be called green panics: silicone breast implants, electromagnetic field poisoning, etc. Other stories having their significance devalued here are leftish ideas, such as that minorities are discriminated against in getting mortgage loans or that poverty is a cause of elevated infant mortality.
There was room for a postscript (but there is none) considering whether they chose their examples because a) they had another agenda besides the stated one; or, b) editors run a lot more dubious panic stories from the left than from the right.
I'd put my money on b if I had to guess.
Anyhow, their analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound.
"Despite our criticism," they write, "we nevertheless have an abiding respect for the journalists who serve us in a vital capacity."
True enough, people who don't get their science filtered through reporters are not going to get any science in their intellectual diet at all.

The book is very informative, and fairly concise, which is probably my only criticism of it. I would have loved to read more case studies! Actually, something like this should have a newsletter.. hmmm hey authors, how about something via email?

I was already suspicious of much I heard in the media, but this book fully opened my eyes. I will no longer just take for granted the conclusions reached by our esteemed media.

Read it, and pass it around to your friends and family, it can only serve to open their eyes as well, that is, assuming they want to open them..