Other Sellers on Amazon
$17.47
FREE Shipping
on orders over $25.00
shipped by Amazon.
FREE Shipping
Get free shipping
Free shipping
within the U.S. when you order $25.00
of eligible items shipped by Amazon.
Or get faster shipping on this item starting at $5.99
. (Prices may vary for AK and HI.)
Learn more about free shipping
Sold by: Amazon.com
$15.13
+ $4.35 shipping
+ $4.35 shipping
Sold by: 1book1jewelry
Sold by: 1book1jewelry
(79 ratings)
96% positive over last 12 months
96% positive over last 12 months
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Shipping rates and Return policy $19.91
& FREE Shipping
& FREE Shipping
Sold by: OptimumOptimorum
Sold by: OptimumOptimorum
(129 ratings)
95% positive over last 12 months
95% positive over last 12 months
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Shipping rates and Return policy Add to book club
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Got a mobile device?
You’ve got a Kindle.
You’ve got a Kindle.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Enter your mobile phone or email address
Send link
Processing your request...
By pressing "Send link," you agree to Amazon's Conditions of Use.
You consent to receive an automated text message from or on behalf of Amazon about the Kindle App at your mobile number above. Consent is not a condition of any purchase. Message & data rates may apply.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
OK
It Ain't Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality Hardcover – March 7, 2001
by
David Murray
(Author),
Joel Schwartz
(Author),
Robert S. Lichter
(Author)
&
0
more
| David Murray (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
Enhance your purchase
Airplane crashes. The AIDS epidemic. Presidential election polls and voting results. Global warming. The latest cancer scare. All these news stories require scientific savvy first, to report, and then―for news consumers―to understand. It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the miasma surrounding media reporting of scientific studies, surveys, and statistics. Whether the problem is bad science, media politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge, this book gives news consumers the tools to penetrate the hype and dig out the facts. Don't stop flying, run to the doctor, or change your diet before reading It Ain't Necessarily So.
- Print length256 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherRowman & Littlefield Publishers
- Publication dateMarch 7, 2001
- Dimensions6.38 x 0.82 x 9.22 inches
- ISBN-100742510956
- ISBN-13978-0742510951
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
What should readers make of the news report stating that minority mortgage applications are refused twice as often as those of white applicants, when another one claims that their applications are approved 89% as often? How are we to evaluate the various scientific reports we come across every day? Washington, D.C.-based social scientists Murray, Schwartz and Lichter (Lichter is the co-author of Peepshow and other books) demonstrate how journalists can put a spin on research results to make them conform to preexisting beliefs, and, alternatively, how complicated findings can be easily and innocently misinterpreted. When politicians get hold of the news reports, the qualifiers found in the original research too often disappear as the pols seize upon a potentially troublesome finding and attempt to "do something about" it. Yet, as the authors fairly point out, the fault doesn't always lie with the messenger. Sometimes researchers use proxies instead of direct measurements, using income as a proxy for poverty, for example. And often, seemingly paradoxical results confuse everyone: a decline in the number of cases of a disease can still result in an increase in the percentage of total illnesses if other ailments have declined even more. The authors do a thorough job of pointing out the fallacies and errors that underlie much reporting on science such as widespread reports that male sperm counts have decreased over the decades (a good look at the evidence, they claim, shows the conclusion was based on insufficient figures). Readers from all walks of life will acquire a more critical eye from this thought-provoking examination of how science gets served up for our early-morning reading and postprandial evening news.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
The intersection of media culture with scientific research does not often result in a better-informed public, according to Murray and coauthors Joel Schwarz and S. Robert Lichter. In a series of case studies, the three authors affiliated, respectively, with the Statistical Assessment Service, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Center for Media and Public Affairs illustrate what happens to scientific research as it becomes news. Scientists publish the results of their work as the first step in a process that includes dialog and further studies. Journalists seek stories that are exciting, controversial, and novel. All too often the resulting news articles are not good science. Sometimes, stories are reported prematurely, such as the 1989 coverage of nuclear cold fusion. Other times, startling statistics are offered without context, such as reporting the number of abductions of children without explaining the various categories of abduction used by the researchers. After reading this suggestive analysis, readers will come away wondering if it is possible to understand the world around us through the news media. Recommended for aspiring journalists and consumers of news. Judy Solberg, George Washington Univ. Lib., Washington, DC
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Review
Excellent and devastating new book. . . . Provides a real education on media fraud, which is infinitely more important than media bias., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
This title offers tools to assist in understanding what and how media reports., Ann Arbor News
Risk and uncertainty plague our daily lives, especially when they drive media headlines. But savvy consumers of news have a new ally with the appearance of this timely and entertaining read that manages to take the process apart and show us the guts of how news is really made. -- John D. Graham, director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and Robert Lichter look beneath the surface of today's journalism and find narrative 'templates' that reflect journalists' ideologies and world views―which are often very different from that of readers, listeners, and viewers. In It Ain't Necessarily So, they show how this results in sloppy reporting, misleading impressions, and the propagation of downright lies. This book helps consumers of journalism make sense of the news―even when the journalists have made nonsense of the statistics. -- Michael Barone, senior writer, U.S. News & World Report; co-author, The Almanac of American Politics
One of the greatest dangers to good public policy is bad reporting on science. It abounds. In this important new book, the authors explore why the media has such a tough time getting the story straight on scientific research. Better yet, they expertly demystify the process, showing consumers why they often get an adulterated media product with little relationship to reality. -- James K. Glassman, American Enterprise Institute
Fake statistics flood the news media these days. This book is the essential antidote. -- John Leo, U.S. News & World Reports
Today agenda-driven social pressures can cloud the media's presentation of the complex enterprise of science. With splendid insight, Murray et al. clear the biases in a powerful and timely primer that leaps the chasm of ignorance to show the facts of science. -- Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Readers from all walks of life will acquire a more critical eye from this thought-provoking examination of how science gets served up for our early-morning reading and postprandial evening news., Publishers Weekly
Recommended reading for all members of the news media audience., Skeptical Inquirer
The authors are respected critics of science reporting. The authors commendably ground their ideas in previous scholarship and provide helpful annotations within chapters. Highly recommended for academic journalism collections serving upper-division undergraduates through faculty and for professional and public libraries., CHOICE
The authors do a fine, well-researched job in shining a light on the problems of the reader should beware., The Philadelphia Inquirer
An impressive piece of media criticism, more serious-minded and rigorous than sloppy and alarmist reporting on science deserves, and surprisingly readable., The Weekly Standard
The book offers a solid critique of the way data-based reports and studies are presented in the media., Idaho Statesman
It Ain't Necessarily So details how many of the 'facts' that drive sensational claims derive from how numbers are defined., Wall Street Journal Asia
The authors' analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound., The Maui News
I recommend that everyone take time to read this book. -- Joseph Endres, The Endres Group, Inform
Riveting!, Philanthropy
The commentaries on stories are measured and convincing., Times Literary Supplement
Well-written and carefully researched . . . a valuable addition to earlier studies of media and science., Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
This title offers tools to assist in understanding what and how media reports., Ann Arbor News
Risk and uncertainty plague our daily lives, especially when they drive media headlines. But savvy consumers of news have a new ally with the appearance of this timely and entertaining read that manages to take the process apart and show us the guts of how news is really made. -- John D. Graham, director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and Robert Lichter look beneath the surface of today's journalism and find narrative 'templates' that reflect journalists' ideologies and world views―which are often very different from that of readers, listeners, and viewers. In It Ain't Necessarily So, they show how this results in sloppy reporting, misleading impressions, and the propagation of downright lies. This book helps consumers of journalism make sense of the news―even when the journalists have made nonsense of the statistics. -- Michael Barone, senior writer, U.S. News & World Report; co-author, The Almanac of American Politics
One of the greatest dangers to good public policy is bad reporting on science. It abounds. In this important new book, the authors explore why the media has such a tough time getting the story straight on scientific research. Better yet, they expertly demystify the process, showing consumers why they often get an adulterated media product with little relationship to reality. -- James K. Glassman, American Enterprise Institute
Fake statistics flood the news media these days. This book is the essential antidote. -- John Leo, U.S. News & World Reports
Today agenda-driven social pressures can cloud the media's presentation of the complex enterprise of science. With splendid insight, Murray et al. clear the biases in a powerful and timely primer that leaps the chasm of ignorance to show the facts of science. -- Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Readers from all walks of life will acquire a more critical eye from this thought-provoking examination of how science gets served up for our early-morning reading and postprandial evening news., Publishers Weekly
Recommended reading for all members of the news media audience., Skeptical Inquirer
The authors are respected critics of science reporting. The authors commendably ground their ideas in previous scholarship and provide helpful annotations within chapters. Highly recommended for academic journalism collections serving upper-division undergraduates through faculty and for professional and public libraries., CHOICE
The authors do a fine, well-researched job in shining a light on the problems of the reader should beware., The Philadelphia Inquirer
An impressive piece of media criticism, more serious-minded and rigorous than sloppy and alarmist reporting on science deserves, and surprisingly readable., The Weekly Standard
The book offers a solid critique of the way data-based reports and studies are presented in the media., Idaho Statesman
It Ain't Necessarily So details how many of the 'facts' that drive sensational claims derive from how numbers are defined., Wall Street Journal Asia
The authors' analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound., The Maui News
I recommend that everyone take time to read this book. -- Joseph Endres, The Endres Group, Inform
Riveting!, Philanthropy
The commentaries on stories are measured and convincing., Times Literary Supplement
Well-written and carefully researched . . . a valuable addition to earlier studies of media and science., Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
About the Author
David Murray is the director of research at the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS). Joel Schwartz is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and is the author of several books. S. Robert Lichter is co-director of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) and co-author of over ten books, including Peepshow (ISBN 0742500101). All three authors live in the Washington, DC, metro area.
Product details
- Publisher : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 1st edition (March 7, 2001)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 256 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0742510956
- ISBN-13 : 978-0742510951
- Item Weight : 1.08 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.38 x 0.82 x 9.22 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #4,525,927 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,750 in Political Reference
- #2,493 in Consumer Guides (Books)
- #21,600 in Communication & Media Studies
- Customer Reviews:
Start reading It Ain't Necessarily So on your Kindle in under a minute.
Don't have a Kindle? Compra tu Kindle aquí, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Don't have a Kindle? Compra tu Kindle aquí, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Audible Holiday Deal
Join Audible Premium Plus for 60% off. Only $5.95 a month for the first 3 months. Get this deal
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Read moreRead less
Customer reviews
3.8 out of 5 stars
3.8 out of 5
19 global ratings
How are ratings calculated?
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2001
Verified Purchase
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.
12 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on July 9, 2001
Verified Purchase
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..
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..
11 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on July 30, 2001
Verified Purchase
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.
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.
35 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Reviewed in the United States on November 8, 2006
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.
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.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse



