3
SciPoll 642: The Impact of Poor Media Coverage on Scientific Communication
Which aspect of poor media coverage do you think is most problematic?
Results
(106 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Exaggeration of risksuser-477751In my field (toxicology), exaggerated risks based on hazard assessment only generate fear/litigation/ unnecessary costs for remediation etc
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-753537including exaggeration of either benefits or risks.
=exaggeration of the strength of evidence (causality) and the size of the effects - Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-355607It may lead to false interpretation of diseases that demand thorough assessments
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-561710both exaggeration of benefits and of risks are catastrophic. look at the roundup debacle, it is clear that based on the big NIH study there really is no risk for the average roundup user. but the fact they lost that lawsuit has made everybody panic.
on the flip side, it is quite evident that the covid vaccines had no real clear benefits for 90% of the population. probably the risk outweighed the benefits in most cases. but media spun that to get their ad dollars. - Exaggeration of risksuser-377267The exaggeration of risks is a major tool used by media to gain attention and generate the impression of importance. The widespread fear of being 'intoxicated' by chemicals including plant protection products is a result of such falsified evidence.
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-176904a brief discussion of the evidence supporting the note and the limitations that a diet, ingredient, or treatment might have. It also does not cover the fact that such research takes years to conduct and requires more support and time to continue.
- Other (please specify)user-242774My BIG criticism of MOST media coverage of chemicals and their known/potential relationship to human health is that the media ONLY focus on HAZARD (TOXICITY) of the chemical and NOT focus the RISK of developing one or more of the stated health hazards (based on the intrinsic ability of the chemical to cause adverse health effects). True, we do not want hazardous/toxic chemicals in out air, water, products, etc. BUT the very important detail Media does NOT focus on is the RISK. Risk = Hazard x Exposure. They never bring exposure into the equation. The dose make the poison. In my opinion, the media is doing a very larger disservice not only to citizens but and science (toxicology, etc.) by not giving what is important and the whole story!
- Exaggeration of risksuser-298485It isn’t even exaggeration of risks or oversimplification of information, it is just completely failure to understand the actual risk involved and then sensationalize and oversimplify from there.
- Exaggeration of risksuser-484519also oversimplification.
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-740332Often the original articles do not go as far as the media headlines
- Exaggeration of risksuser-822867Fear brings lot of negativity and problems in the society
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-489806Journalists often latch on to a finding that supports their narrative, yet silently ignore findings that do otherwise.
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-133885the study design of the primary article was poor to begin with but then the misrepresentation made it sound better and the conclusion tighter than it was and social media hyped the conclusions to make it sound like a solid conclusion
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-902187Both exaggeration of benefits and risks depending on the study
- Other (please specify)user-433549Publishing information with unreliable conflicts of interest
- Other (please specify)user-768135Biased conclusions against interdisciplinary researchers. And slimplipy the complex systems in "cartoon" examples.
- Other (please specify)user-887652Exaggeration in general, but maybe primarily exaggeration of certainty, overgeneralization, and the tendency to fawn over charismatic individuals. None of those things can be blamed purely on media.
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-214851Scientific findings are not the only issue in studies. Most studies discuss their limitations and biases. Often, media coverage does not include many such issues in the coverage.
Science reporters do a much better job than the average reporter. - Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-830315Coming from Italy, I think that usually there are a lot of fake news on medical malpractice, where the doctors did not perform any kind of malpractice. People have the feeling that medicine is an exact science, when is not
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-728133Exaggerated risk and befits are also problematic in some cases
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-532952Often journalists don't understand the science and manufacture headlines
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-696023The first two topics apply to toxicvology (2nd) and pharmacology (1st). Oversimplification may appear but for lay people scientific thinking has to be sismplified.
- Other (please specify)user-895401All of the choices made are important because each of them has an impact in a meaningful direction
- Other (please specify)user-633316Nothing
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-246431makes things unsustainable in the long run
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-743452The misrepresentation of study conclusions is the most problematic aspect of poor media coverage because it fundamentally distorts the intended message of scientific research. When study conclusions are misrepresented, the public receives inaccurate information about what the research actually found, which can lead to widespread misunderstandings and incorrect beliefs. This misrepresentation can also amplify biases, perpetuate myths, and influence decision-making in ways that are not supported by the actual evidence. For example, misreporting the effectiveness or safety of medical treatments can directly impact public health decisions and policy-making. Furthermore, it can damage the credibility of researchers and institutions, making it harder for future findings to be trusted and accepted. In sum, accurately conveying study conclusions is essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific communication and ensuring that public perception aligns with scientific reality.
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-52919Almost a combination of all the options given
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-265612Misrepresentation of study conclusions to the people on social media.
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-984299Ñ
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-967592Journalist try to explain research with their own understanding
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-755272There may be some accurate and accurate conclusions from a study, but if the reporters are not trained and professional in health reporting, they end up reporting like any other generic news.
- Misrepresentation of study conclusionsuser-606148really should be "all of the above"
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-270255Statistical results must be reported in context of other findings. For example, a mortality rate for a specific disease could be given in context to other commonly known diseases, or total number of cases versus percentage of cases versus percentage of cases tested -- epidemiology in context.
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-557043In popular media, scientific breakthroughs are often discussed in terms of when will this breakthough benefit the general public. The answers to this question is often very complex and the timeline for practical implementation of a scientific breakthrough for practical public benefit can be very innaccurate if the science is very new or very complex.
- Exaggeration of benefitsuser-987379The people who put out press releases, want to gain attention and traction.
- Oversimplification of complex topicsuser-864887In fact, there should be an option for choosing more than one topic, perhaps even "all of the above". However, oversimplification of complex topics is probably the most problematic because of the above-mentioned modern prevalence of scientific journalists lacking actual research experience.
- Other (please specify)user-885754The most problematic aspect of poor media coverage of science is the dissemination of misinformation and its significant impact on public health and safety. Misleading reports can lead to widespread public misunderstandings, resulting in poor health decisions, such as vaccine hesitancy, which can have dire consequences during a pandemic (FINN Partners -). Sensationalized coverage can exaggerate the significance of findings, causing unnecessary panic or false security. For instance, exaggerated risks of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccines have overshadowed the more significant risks posed by the virus (FINN Partners - https://www.finnpartners.com/news-insights/mad-science-media-coverage-and-misinformation/). Such misinformation can influence policy decisions and clinical practices prematurely, as seen with the drug Iressa, which was widely adopted before being proven ineffective (Ethics Journal - https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/media-miss-key-points-scientific-reporting/2007-03). Moreover, sensationalized media can perpetuate stigma and discrimination, notably in the portrayal of drug users, leading to harmful social and health outcomes (PsyPost - Psychology News - https://www.psypost.org/dehumanizing-media-portrayals-of-drug-users-worsen-stigma-and-discrimination-study-finds/). The spread of misinformation through poor media coverage undermines public trust in scientific institutions. It can have long-lasting adverse effects on society.