John Tierney of The New York Times recently wrote an article titled "10 things to scratch from your worry list." What has me worried is how this column got past the copy desk -- it's full of half-truths and misused statistics. Daniel Luzer of Mother Jones picks Tierney's column apart piece by piece. Although Tierney supplied some of the facts, he left out some key particulars that might have yielded a more helpful column. This story wasn't written on deadline, so the desk certainly had time to check the facts. Even more disturbing is the fact that Tierney's piece was in the Science section, which should be full of editors who understand how to decipher scientific studies. I wonder if this is a common problem at The Times or an anomaly.
It's important for journalists to interpret research so the reader can understand it. That sometimes means turning academic gobbledygook into English. It also means putting the statistics into context. What does the science mean to the average reader? To do this well, you have to understand the basics of scientific research. Was the study conducted properly? If you don't know what to look for, you can't help readers very much. If you're like many journalists and have an aversion to math, check out Robert Niles' guide to common statistical terms. It's a good introduction.
Remember, if you don't understand something, your readers might not, either. If you're unsure, ask. Better to be embarrassed in private than to get something ridiculously wrong in the mass media.
No comments:
Post a Comment