Balance

          I do not believe that journalists should grant equal time to scientists who have beliefs or conceptions of scientific reality that do not match the majority. We have discussed repeatedly in class the importance of making sure that our readers are scientifically literate. Are we as science journalists doing our readers a disservice by presenting issues that are largely irrelevant? I would argue yes. We already are very aware of how little time people spend on science writing, and I think that it is important to use that time as efficiently as possible. Give the reader exactly what they need to know.

          This is not to say that it is not important to present other findings that may be conflictual with what science is saying. There are instances in which a portion of science has largely been overlooked and now new scientific evidence is refuting published work. It is important to not dismiss information because it does not coincide with what we believe, unless the majority has already proven it false. What may be important for science writers is to present the conflicts in that particular researcher rather than dismiss it as “hogwash.” Unfortunately, the challenge is when to present the other side.

          Balance in journalism, in my opinion, refers to using the data that we have to present what we know. If the data overwhelmingly supports one particular position with little to no objection I see very little need to present the other argument. Many readers cannot decipher which is the right argument if you put them both in equally. If the reader would like to find out more about the opposing opinion they are able to search through other publications. I will not lie about what the research shows by including irrelevant arguments, but I will also not deny that there is other research available if you look for it. In fact, I would not be against having an attachment or link to a website that gives the opposing opinion which would allow the reader the choice whether to look for further information.

          While balance in journalism is important, I believe honesty and integrity is superior. If we over embellish the other argument we run the risk of falsely influencing our readers and I find that to be dishonest. There are some issues that both arguments could be important, for example Hydraulic Fracturing. There are others that are just simply misleading, for example the lack of relationship between HIV and AIDS. If we are true to the science, the journalism should be simple.

The Scientist

      My participation in this particular blog was quite bias as I have written previous blogs on who I define as a scientist. I just drew two different people, one “average” looking woman and one “average” looking man. I thoroughly believe that anyone and everyone is a scientist in their own way. The experiences in our everyday life are not only scientific in method but in action, examining action and reaction. Similarly to mine a friend drew a picture of a woman in the jungle. She has long hair and she is examining a monkey. There were no real defining traits besides being a woman. I think this is commentary about either about the changing perception of science or the similar type of thinking between my friends.

          I do not think that the stereotypes are to blame for disconnect between science and the public. Truthfully, I do not think most people think about the people who are performing the experiment, unless they are challenging their accountability, and then they seem to know every detail of the individual. However, stereotypes continue feelings of apprehension and pretension. Science writers struggle to simply get an audience as the general public is alienated and therefore less interested. There needs to be a reformation in the way that the public thinks about science, a revolution if you will.

          I generally have a hard time believing that people are as ignorant to say that they distrust science because of the disposition of another individual. I also believe that most people are intelligent enough to discount Jenny McCarthy’s arguments of vaccine related Autism. We live in a society of diverse thought and opinion and if Jenny McCarthy did exist I am sure there would be someone else to fill the role. What I mean is that I think overall people trust science, and in my opinion too trusting. If people did not trust science there would be a higher readership of science related articles and ideally more people becoming involved in the search for the truth. When homosexuality was part of the DSM there was an outrage by the society, which eventually led to its removal. People did not believe that being gay or a lesbian was a medical phenomenon and therefore challenged scientists to further examine what it means to be homosexual. A distrust of science keeps the entire field moving forward and continuously testing “facts,” and unfortunately I believe the citizens are largely apathetic.