Thursday, March 28, 2013

Fair News or Foul News?

As reported, Fox News quotes themselves to be "fair and balanced". If you recall last week's blog, I spoke about fairness and balance being used to reinforce a point. Although someone or something, in this case fox news, claims to be fair, they usually tend to be the opposite.

The study provided explains that viewers of Fox news are less informed than those who are watching CNN, Jon Stewart, or no news at all. I believe that this is just a reinforcement of my previous point. Giving balance is just a way to help a journalist sway or direct viewers in their preferred direction. Although that seems to be very unethical, we all know that Fox News is highly popular and certainly does the job of a journalist. They "attract" the viewers regardless of "credibility" in information.

So the question is, does fairness lead to a misinformed audience or does it lead you down the path the news wants you to go? I believe that the news has a goal for the viewer and that fairness and balance is just a cover. If you see a fruit stand that advertises "the freshest fruit" versus one that advertises "Good Fruit", where are you likely going to go? The goal of the advertisement is to attract and portray a mindset that the information relayed is reliable and the "best". That, in no way, means that the information provided is credible or the most informing.

The goals of the media will certainly effect the audiences knowledge. It is pretty clear that there are die hard CNN or Fox News Fans, for example. People take the information by "their" trusted sources and use it to stay informed. If those outlets have a goal in mind, and that could be to omit information or sway a story to mold to their liking, then they will have a direct effect on those watching. People have a strong belief in their news sources and will even argue their side of the story versus the opposition. Whether the information is correct or not, people stand by their news source. If current knowledge is gained through news outlets then they legitimately have a foot in the door with how smart their viewers can be. 

Friday, March 22, 2013

Balance: Use it to Your Advantage

Although I acknowledge that giving balance in scientific media can be a waste of time, I believe that giving balance is the key to getting a viewer to actually read your work. There is certainly some skeptics that you seem to be satisfying by splitting columns but I believe scientific media needs those skeptics.

If you are a scientific writer that believes cold hard facts and indisputable information is what is necessary in science writing then you will likely disagree with me. In my personal opinion, if everyone is agreeing on a topic like HIV and Aids, your scientific writing will likely not be read. Readers like to read some sort of controversy or dispute in scientific research. For instance, Scientific breakthroughs tend to tell the story of defying odds and finding final results (balance). The controversy, in some ways, is just as attractive as the actual science. Without that skepticism, people find science to be boring or dry.

You may be thinking, well skeptics have very little factual reinforcement. Why give balance?

As all scientists know, proving something to be 100% right is relatively impossible. The most effective scientific media is done by acknowledging readers lack of knowledge and simply giving both sides of the spectrum. Additionally, giving readers the evidence that one side is clearly more correct than the other is a writers way of proving their point. In a way, using balance to actually reinforce one side.

So I must admit, I agree with Mooney in the sense that giving balance is frustrating and questionable, but I believe balance can be used to a writer's advantage. Although I am a novice scientific writer, I know from my own experiences that balance can actually reinforce the point you are driving. You can satisfy a "critic" by giving them column space, but in return actually be separating scientific fact from skepticism.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Fashion Weekly: Goggles and Wirey Hair

After taking several minutes to draw my version of a scientist and then comparing that to the depictions I requested from friends, I found that we all constructed relatively similar pictures. I guess our pictures follow your stereotypical scientists. For example, Goggles over eyes, tongs in hand, wire thin white hair, and long lab coats. These depictions are not far off of what you may see in ClipArt. Little did i know that when you take two steps back, the drawing that i constructed was exactly the opposite of what a "real" scientists looks like. (As far as I know)

So what is the impact of this stereotype that us artists worked so hard to depict?

Well considering my short background in science, particularly scientific writing, I have found that science is far from what it appears to be. In a sense, people get the wrong message when they think about scientists. You immediately think of a nerdy, crazy, Frankenstein making old guy that mixes chemicals. These stereotypes cause a particular difficulty for science writers who are trying to organize and express complex scientific concepts. After all, do you really trust that wirey haired old guy mizing chemicals?

Science writers, as I have learned from experience, are disguised as regular humans. In fact, I feel like any minute they will unzip their costumes and a mad scientist will step out. Obviously I am kidding, but this is my way of showing you how difficult it is to comprehend who is exactly relaying you scientific information. When you read an article, you look at sources and you immediately check the contents credibility. Scientific writers are scrutinized the same way. These stereotypes that me and my friends drew with pencil are what people see when they hear a "scientist" wrote or conducted something. If that trust, or tested credibility is relying on a stereotype then that article will likely not be read.

Scientific writers biggest struggle is getting someone interested in the "boring" science they have chosen to write about. If that stereotype cannot be broken or worked around, then the battle is far from over. Mistrust and misinterpretation in science writing can live or die by that mad scientist that we have drawn and until you experience the "real" scientists, you may never find that interest in science that scientific writers seek.