I remember some years ago 20 years ago any time I was interviewed by a
journalist a print journalist the print journalism is taking what I said and
turning it into an article so has to pass through the journalists get
processed and then it becomes some written content on a page 100% of those
experiences the journalist got something fundamentally wrong with the subject
matter and just an interesting point about the power of journalists I had
people read the article and say Neal you must know better than that
that's not how this works they assume the journalist was correct about
reporting what I said not that I was correct and that the journalism
journalist was wrong okay this is an interesting power the journalists have
over whether you think what they're writing is true or not I even had a case
rather have one brother and a sister I had a case where they misreported that I
had two brothers and had a friend of mine who had been a friend for five or
ten years at me I just read I didn't know you had two brothers and I said I
don't well it says it right here this is the power of journalism a mistake
becomes truth that was decades ago in recent years what I think has happened
is there more journalists who are science fluent that are writing about
science then was the case 20 years ago so now I don't have to worry about the
journalists missing something fundamental about what I'm trying to
describe and reporting has been much more accurate in recent years I'm happy
to report however there's something that has not been fixed in journalism yet
it's their urge to get the story first the science story the breaking news
about a discovery the urge to get it first means they're reporting on
something that's not yet verified by other scientific experiments there was
not yet verified it's not such not there yet and you're more likely to
write about a story that is most extraordinary and the more extraordinary
is the single scientific result the less likely it is that it's going to be true
so then you need some restraint there or some way to buffer the account I don't
want you to not talk about it but say this is not yet verified it's not yet
this it's not yet that and it's been criticized by these other people anyway
so be more open about how long this thing is you're reporting on could be
because otherwise you're doing a disservice to the public and that
disservice is they'll say well some people out there say scientists don't
know anything well what gives you that idea
well one weak cholesterol is good for you and the next week it's bad for you
they don't know what they're doing that's on the frontier on the frontier
science is flip-flopping all the time yes if you're gonna report from the
frontier it looks like scientists are clueless
about everything you take a few steps behind the line where experiments have
verified and re verified results that's the stuff for the textbooks
that's the stuff that is objectively true that's the stuff you should be
paying attention to that's the stuff you should be thinking about laws and
legislation related to that speak to journalists say we need a fair and
balanced article so if you say this we will go to someone else with the
opposite view and that way it's fair and balanced where do you draw the line
you realize earth goes around the Sun right oh yeah of course
if someone says the Sun goes around the earth are you going to give them equal
time well of course not because that's just ridiculous
fine now how about how much column space you're giving to climate change
well there are scientists who say it's real this scientist or not so we give
you them equal time equal space are they equal in the literature no are they
equal in impact no are they equal in any way No except in your journalistic
philosophy you want to give more column space
to something that is shown to be false by the consensus of observation and
experiment that's out there and you think you you're honoring your
journalistic credo but you're not not on that level it's like saying the Sun goes
around the earth far as I'm concerned that's patently absurd to you so you got
to know where you draw that line because when matters of science it's not it's
not simply what's the other opposite opinion I can get on it look to see how
much scientific agreement has descended upon that statement and if there's not
much agreement then fine talk about the whole frontier there's plenty of that
just go to any scientific conference you want to get multiple views on something
that's where you'd get it but the moment something enters the Canon of objective
knowledge and objective truths and that's the kind of emergent truth that
we have with climate change humans warming the planet that's the kind of
agreement we have in scientific research oh you don't you you think it's some
other way you want it to be that's odd if you went to your doctor and you have
some ailment the docs just you take this pill which 3% of all research says will
cure you we can take this pill which 97% of all research says will cure you which
one are you gonna walk away from the doctor's office with the 97% pill of
course yet you walk out of there and say oh I believe the 3% who say we're not
warming the planet this is irresponsible plus it means you don't know how science
works it's not your fault it's the educational system and that's what I'm
working on