2
SciPoll 642: The Impact of Poor Media Coverage on Scientific Communication
In your opinion, how significant is the issue of poor media coverage of science?
Results
(106 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Very significantuser-885754The issue of poor media coverage of science is highly significant and multifaceted, affecting public perception, policy decisions, and individual behaviors. Several vital aspects highlight its importance: public misunderstanding and misinformation, fueling misinformation and panic, impact on policy and healthcare, perpetuating stigma and discrimination, and erasing trust in science. The significance of poor media coverage of science lies in its ability to distort public understanding, influence policy and healthcare in potentially harmful ways, perpetuate stigma, and erode trust in science. However, by addressing this issue through a concerted effort from scientists, journalists, and media consumers, we can promote accurate, nuanced, and context-rich reporting on scientific matters, fostering hope for a more informed and trusting society.
- Very significantuser-864887Nowadays, media coverage of science is often written by journalists who have no direct professional experience with the subject matter.
- Somewhat significantuser-987379These news releases that overstate the actual results, would wash out and the next day are replaced by another sensational title.
- Somewhat significantuser-557043Like science, media and journalism is generally "self-correcting" in that inaccurate media reports generally do eventually get corrected. The problem is that if the inaccurate reporting happens in a large and well known media outlet like CNN or The New York Times and the inaccurate reporting is corrected in a much less well known media source like AXIOS or Rocket Report, not many people will see the corrected reporting.
- Very significantuser-270255News interpreted statistics out of context, leading to public policy and public opinion that may not have been warranted.
- Very significantuser-606148Irresponsible media and think tanks will "farm" research reports and use an oversimplification of a probabilistic argument to justify their preconceptions.
Responsible media only rarely state efficacy or predictions in terms of a range (confidence interval) rather than a mean. - Very significantuser-755272It misleads the population as they end up consuming wrong information about healthcare
- Very significantuser-967592Due to poor coverage, inventions are not reaching to the ground level
- Somewhat significantuser-818026On the other hand, these attention grabbing headlines can offer hope for potential treatment, even if years away.
- Very significantuser-265612The negative media representation affected the uptake of Covid 19 jab
- Somewhat significantuser-350867there is so much noise out there that even good media coverage of science would have little impact. The "controversy" over the COVID vaccine or vaccines in general is a perfect example.
- Very significantuser-52919Media is a source of communication for the people far and across through any mode.
- Very significantuser-6829Poor courage reduces the impact on what the public know hence little to knowledge dissemination. This affect how the public perceive issues that are importance. For example, little is communicated on antibiotics use which is resulting in increased antibiotics resistance.
- Very significantuser-743452Poor media coverage of science is a very significant issue as it has far-reaching consequences for both the scientific community and the public. Sensationalized or inaccurate reporting can lead to widespread misinformation, which undermines public trust in science and scientific institutions. This erosion of trust can result in poor public compliance with health guidelines, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, it can distort the public's understanding of important scientific issues, leading to misguided policy decisions and misplaced funding priorities. For the scientific community, such coverage can misrepresent research findings, damage reputations, and diminish the perceived value of scientific inquiry. Ultimately, ensuring accurate and responsible media reporting is crucial for fostering an informed and scientifically literate society.
- Very significantuser-246431disproportionate compared to anti-science and pseudo-science
- Not very significantuser-633316Daily media gives more attention to low educated peoples agenda.
- Very significantuser-895401Publishing scientific results is extremely important, as it enhances the discovery of scientific facts by increasing the benefit of societies from them
- Very significantuser-696023Distorting scientific data destroys trust in science, and opens the door for generally discarding scientific results. In my opinion, it is the main reason for the proliferation of fake news (just select and squeeze scientific data a little bit like journalists do can support any conclusion).
- Very significantuser-532952People will read it and use it as a refernce
- Very significantuser-830315This leads to a misjudgment of the medical, research and scientific world in general
- Somewhat significantuser-887652This question is too broadly phrased. All science is not equally significant. Likewise all instances of poor media coverage.
- Very significantuser-433549Transparency in presenting topics and evaluation
- Very significantuser-133885media may be based on the review article which misunderstands and hence misrepresents the article making it more significant than it is. while we cannot be for sure, the timing coincided with the withdrawal of several clinical trials.
- Somewhat significantuser-489806Most I know do not discuss scientific findings addressed in pop-journalism. I think most educated people know to avoid them. However, less educated people do not think to check the original empirical article, no less understand what the article was really about.
- Very significantuser-242774Please see my answer, in the next section.
- Very significantuser-902187Very significant because there is little in the way of checks and balances on sensationalizing results
- Very significantuser-743123Many news validate sensasionalistic approches based on low quality paper
- Very significantuser-176904It is very important that positive advancements are made known and that awareness is created about the efforts being made to improve several aspects of life.
- Very significantuser-822867With so much funding from taxpayers money, they own an explanation in an understanble language
- Very significantuser-740332Media coverage is fashion and/or politics
- Very significantuser-484519sensationalized things, leads to mistrust
- Very significantuser-298485Consumer confidence is in those messages and they use them as the basis for purchasing decisions.
- Very significantuser-377267The concerns induced by such publications may have a strong influence on the public perception and on decisions made by politicians including parliaments.
- Very significantuser-561710it has led to insanity during covid and a lot of horrible policies. still continues to this day.
- Very significantuser-355607It may impact on public knowledge, especially outside the medical community
- Very significantuser-753537It's frustrating if you want to present scientific evidence to a general audience and the media presence sometimes non-sense as 'scientific'
- Very significantuser-477751Predictions based on poor study results resp. one-sided representation will deteriorate confidence in sciene in general
Journalists need "bad news" and identifcation of "evil players" for making their stories more interesting (click-bait)