I insist that science journalism is different from other types of journalism. In politics, sports or any other area if the personality of a journalist or the popularity of a news agency influences your ability to grasp a thing , it is okay. But in science if the opinions of journalists influence you, instead of the facts of the matter presented, it is bad for the field.

I understand the dangers of having more and more journalists become the people who give us not the facts, but viewpoints on the facts. And their biggest mistake while conducting debates and interviews is not asking people of science as well as others who challenge science to give only data and facts based on real science - not pseudo-science - and not their opinions.

With other areas of journalism, news papers/magazines/online news portals can depend on news agencies, press releases, dubious websites and people who make statements like politicians, sports-persons, movie/pop stars. But with regard to science journalism, they should consult the original peer reviewed research papers published in standard science journals that follow the rules and methodologies of science. They can go to the scientists for explanations. They cannot follow the same methods they use for other areas of journalism here if they really care about authenticity and real facts.

One scientist put it this way ... Journalists confuse published research with opinion. Science is what is actually published and not 'what it means' or some detached implication or speculation. It is what it is.

Scientific methodology is just that. Not some dumbed down version of anecdotes or interpretation. I disagree that scientists are poor communicators. The communication is the research paper.

In the US, some scientists there complain that the FOX News tells scientists not to  talk about climate science because people who run it don't accept that the man made climate change as a real one!(ref 3). 

We hear these type of reports (ref 14) where administrators seeks to Gag US scientists and  is limiting the ability of some US scientists to share their findings openly.

Again in the US Wisconsin Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change ( ref6). The restriction prevents 10 staff members at the BCPL from communicating about climate change, including about its potential impacts on 77,000 acres of state timberland. Employees are also required to notify the board's three elected commissioners before answering email inquiries about global warming, and a reference on the board's website to the effects of climbing temperatures on invasive forest species was recently deleted. In Canada weather forecasters are banned from discussing climate change (ref 4). The Canadian Government banned scientists from speaking to the media about their findings without political clearance in 2006, right after Stephen Harper was elected prime minister(7). The current ban is part of a long process of shutting down research programs that are likely "not in keeping with the Conservative government's agenda," IFL Science reports.The program is not limited to climate issues, or even the environment, but critics have argued that Global Warming is the key target. Since the ban there has been an 80% fall in coverage of Global Warming in the Canadian media, according to leaked Environment Canada documents (ref 5).

Now, Trump Administration Restricts News from Federal Scientists at USDA, EPA. The curbs echo what happened in Canada six years ago. Trump’s administration moved quickly this week to shore up its control over communications with the public and the press, as officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture e-mailed staff to inform them that they may no longer discuss agency research or departmental restrictions with anyone outside of the agency—including news media. Both agencies also told their scientists and other staff that press releases and external communications about taxpayer-funded work would stop until further notice. It remains unclear if these will be temporary or long-term policies(11).

And sacking scientists that are doing good work but that go against the local Government's agendas(10) like it is happening in Australia. More than 300 staff are losing their jobs at CSIRO(. CSIRO has long led the world in modelling Southern Hemisphere climate). Oceans and atmosphere unit is losing 74 positions, with hundreds more positions going from the land and water, agriculture, minerals, food and nutrition, and finance units. The climate science losses are happening mainly in Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart, with positions also going in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This has been met with dismay from leading institutions and thousands of scientists around the world who expressed it in multiple letters to prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The director of the Brazilian agency that monitors deforestation was sacked because he told the truth and clashed with the president of that country (12)! Deforestation is shooting up again in the Brazilian Amazon, according to satellite monitoring data. But Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, whom many blame for the uptick, has disputed the trend and attacked the credibility of Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), which produced the data. Bolsonaro called the numbers “a lie” during a  talk with journalists, and suggested INPE Director Ricardo Galvão was “at the service of some [nongovernmental organization].”

His comments triggered a fierce backlash from the scientific community, which feels increasingly under siege from the Bolsonaro administration. “Satellites are not responsible for deforestation—they only objectively record what happens,” says a manifest by the Coalition for Science and Society, a recently formed group of scientists concerned about political developments in Brazil. “Scientific facts will prevail, whether or not people believe in them.” Galvão called Bolsonaro a “coward” for voicing unfounded accusations in public. “I hope he calls me to Brasília to explain the data, and that he has the courage to repeat [what he said] face to face,” Galvão said in an interview with O Estado de S. Paulo newspaper (13). 

And journalists give equal importance to both political opinions and evidence based on data while reporting! Like Aristotle said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal!"

That is really bad. If the opinions of news media or the Governments that control them on the facts of science try to influence people without giving them the correct information or try to suppress the facts because of their strong affiliations to certain parties, that is really the worst form of journalism.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter disastrous beliefs that should have been abandoned long back. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse. Perhaps that’s one reason why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.” And do you respect ignorance, misconceptions and superstitions in the same way as facts based on evidence and true knowledge? How silly that looks!

There is evidence based on a scientists' years of toil, thorough analysis and testing and there is rubbish based on wild imaginations and perceptions and it’s not part of a reporter’s job to give the latter equal time with serious expertise.

Recently I came across a few things in news papers here too.

Science journalism is different because you cannot use the same process you use for other forms of journalism here. For other contentious issues, journalists have to report all  shades of opinions.  But it doesn’t work like this in science. More often than not, there is no “opposition party” or “other side”  in science.  There can be disagreement between various scientists when sometimes the research is incomplete and inconclusive.  This can be reported.  But non-experts cannot be given 'opposition status' in science.  Someone who objects to scientific facts on non-scientific grounds  simply cannot form part of the debate.There is the data and what it means. And there are facts whether anybody  agrees with them or not. You got to report only them. Period.

“One cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” - Stephen Hawking

But funnily the journalistic instinct makes the editors and journalists search and report the other side too while dealing with science! They report both the opinions of evolutionists and creationists giving them equal importance even though the latter people have nothing to do with science! Likewise they say they are discussing something that can cause harm to the societies we live in like superstitions. But all that they do is ask one scientist to state his opinion on the topic of contention and then ask a pundit that deals with an area of superstitions too to state his opinion. This is balancing things according to journalists. But I think this is trying to balance rational thinking with irrational thinking, knowledge with superstition, facts with misconceptions. Societies cannot progress like this. This is not discussion on facts but on opinions. When the scientists don't give facts and just opinions, I think they too are not properly doing their jobs. You don't have a discussion based on facts here. People are just expressing their opinions instead of facts. The pundits who promote superstitions say as several people ( majority) follow them, they are not and cannot be wrong and that this shows they are dealing with the truth! What a dumb argument? In science one rational approach based on facts will carry more weight than millions of irrational approaches based on just beliefs. They also say that Vaastu is a science! Just because you add the word "shastra" (science, roughly) after anything it doesn't become science. Only when it follows all the scientific methods, procedures or principles it becomes science.

The whole question arose because some newly elected politicians here are following 'vastu' (ref 1 ) and spending thousands of rupees of public money on renovations of public buildings because of superstitious beliefs they have. The media people want to do something about it. Very good intention. But instead of investigating the subject based on facts, and providing the facts, and giving rational analysis, these journalists are just relying on "discussions'' which I think  are just expressing opinions ignoring the facts. Easy way out and telling the world, they are doing a good job! Isn't bringing it to the notice of the world good even if it is done in a wrong way?

And I can prove these pundits wrong. One of my uncles who is superstitious too, consulted not one - but three Vastu pundits and modified his house according to vastu rules spending two lakh (200 000) rupees. Before renovating his house he was in a good condition and his business was doing well. He wanted more profits and his greed made him go for vastu. And after renovating his house according to the suggestions of the pundits, his health got spoiled , he was hospitalized four times in two years, his business got effected and he had to sell it away! That is what Vastu based renovation of his house has done to him according to him ( I know vastu has nothing to do with his earlier or changed fortunes now!).  At present my uncle is regretting his irrational decision.

You can read another story on how we proved the Vastu pundits wrong by clicking on reference 2 link.

I know a half-truth is more misleading than a full lie. Some scenarios can be presented in studies with cherry picked data. Journalists and science writers often select the result that proves their hypothesis and do not present or discuss data that indicates different trends or conclusions. Some authors only choose references which support the desired conclusion while ignoring references pointing towards alternative solutions. I don't want to do that here.

Well the Vastu pundits can argue that several people have benefited from Vastu based renovations and can give examples like I did. But I think the truth can be found when we deal with the problem rationally. The effect here is like a chance. You do one thing. And the results you see can be either positive or negative (effect) irrespective of the cause! I can show 10 negative consequences and the vastu pundits can show 10 positive outcomes. Some might not see any changes at all! Therefore, the effect here is an independent outcome and will happen whether you follow vastu or not. So Vastu has no effect whatsoever on peoples' lives and therefore is a belief or a superstition! Vastu can have a placebo effect too. When people think because they have done Vastu related renovations to their dwellings and they can only benefit them, they go about doing things confidently and succeed in the work they do. Vastu pundits say this is a positive result. Well, without these placebo effects of vastu superstition, if we can strengthen the minds of people to have positive effects during the full lengths of their lives won't that be wonderful? Need we still allow the pundits to exploit people in the name of Vastu?

Another blooper journalists make  in this part of the world ....

Science can have a tremendous impact on the lives of living beings. If science information is given wrongly or misleadingly, it can cause more harm than good. Therefore, it is very important that one gets one's facts right with regard to science reporting. Journalists should take extra time to verify facts. They should not treat science news like they treat other issues.

Importance should be given to research impact on societies while reporting not to the eye-ball attracting ones. Likewise, authenticity is more important  for a credible report. A journal that takes care of scientific methodology is more credible than the popular ones that don't adhere to these things. A journalist should be able to differentiate these things for correct reporting.

"Helicopter Journalism" is the word some people are using about the journalists' coverage of science these days because - Journalists don’t have the time and knowledge to get closer and land on clearly defined arenas and understand the scientific facts they are suppose to report on. They just land somewhere - a place suitable for them or fly over the ground they have to cover on the big story from a distance/sky and dash off to report immediately. Tight schedules and space constraints are becoming the limiting   factors for the correct science communication process.

Moreover, just putting facts across need not make people take them in the way they should be taken (9). Science communication researchers say that most people will interpret these facts not with their heads, but with their guts – their emotions, prior opinions and biases. Human perceptions and expectations are huge determinants in basic research as well as its understanding, we tend to see what we expect. I can confirm this by giving an example.       After Nobel laureate and scientist Mr.  Venkatraman Ramakrishnan explained in an interview (8) why Homeopathy is bogus and harmful (of course he confirmed this only like a scientist does - assuming that people will understand his way of explaining things), the online paper that published it conducted a poll. Only 26% of people who read the interview said they agreed with Mr. Ramakrishnan.  68% said, they still had faith in Homeopathy and go for it while nearly 6% said they still couldn't say whether Homeopathy was bogus or not! So this poll shows only one-fourth people can really do unbiased reasoning and accept a fact based on evidence. Rest of the people will go with emotions and biases!

It is also interesting to note that the way the media covers scientific issues deemed to be controversial can compound opportunities for people to engage in Motivated_reasoning . Scholars studying climate change communications have long documented that exposing people to a climate scientist and a climate denier side-by-side reduces their confidence in the scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans. But this phenomenon may extend beyond climate change to our opinions of expertise on many issues. One study by psychologist Derek Koehler suggests that hearing conflicting reports from experts, even when experts are overall in agreement, can cause people to become less confident in the expert consensus.

People think just because some people got positive results (by chance -which factor is largely ignored by people), they too will get them and go for them without indulging in critical thinking like my uncle did and get cheated. So what is a journalist needs to do when trying to uncover the “truth'' because a simple list of facts often doesn’t bring this “truth” across to readers who reason with their guts. A good journalist need to help the readers understand the facts in the context in which they should be understood, in the way they should be interpreted, in the way they should be analysed, in the way they should be connected to the real life situations. The researchers also say that various characteristics of the information source – from credibility, to gender, to political affiliation, to occupation, to familiarity – affect how the reader receives, processes and interprets the information. In an age of multiplicative digital news platforms, where we go to find things probably has something to do with whether we want to hear “just the facts/ truths" or just entertaining stories to fill our time. There is a vast difference between science and entertainment. If the journalists want to fill their pages or spaces with only sensational stories, then the credibility of the media gets effected. I think science cannot get its due respect when dealt by such media houses. If a journalist cannot do justice to his science journalism, it is better for such person to keep away from science. Because he would be doing more harm than good to public perception of science when he deals with the subject. No wonder the societies we live in remain the same way even after decades of work by journalists. Isn't it time the science writers changed their approach to get different results and desired changes?

Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors - Thomas Huxley

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vastu_shastra

2. http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/main-challenges-...

3. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/04/30/my-expe...

4. http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/canada-weather-forec...

5. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/canadian-weather-forecasters-...

6. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wisconsin-agency-bans-tal...
7. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/15/Canada-Muzzled-Scientists/

8. http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/homeopathy-astrology-are-bogus-...

9. http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/literate-people-...

10. https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/mo...

11. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administration-res...

12. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/brazilian-institute-head-fi...

13. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/deforestation-amazon-shooti...

14. https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/trump-seeks-to-gag-us-s...