Science News Review

I Was Bigfoot’s Love Slave!

Jul 30 at 10:10pm by Aileen

Or, how about “Angelina’s Alien Clone Babies!” (subtitle, “Brad stands by his woman even after UFO abduction…”. Or some such rot. We’ve all seen ‘em at the grocery store checkout line, and we’ve all been terribly tempted to read the funnies even if we absolutely don’t want to be seen buying one. I once saw a stand-up comedy act in which the comedian did nothing more than hold up a copy of the National Enquirer and read off the headlines and sidebar – with feeling. Then he’d say…

“But that’s NOT the real story! The REAL story is on page [whatever]…” whereupon he’d flip to some inside page with an even more bizarre headline and story. All with a perfectly deadpan face, fully animated only while reading the lurid details with Shakespearian delivery. He was so funny I saw the show three times.

Now, most of us actually do know better than to believe the sensationalized storytelling and photoshop creativity in tabloid rags like that. That’s what makes them such good comedy fodder. Nor do most of us purchase the magical anti-hex pendants or crystal healing rings or genuine eye of newt sure-love powder advertised in the pages of such rags. But somebody must be buying all that junk – as well as the tabloids they finance – and even if we do occasionally get a guilty pleasure out of light reading in the checkout line, most regular people would claim they don’t know anybody who’s really that dumb. Save perhaps an odd relative or friend of a friend.

Yet sometimes I wonder about how science and critical thinking are being taught (or not) in this country’s compulsory public education system, if this sort of “news” appeals to literally millions of people. Most all of whom got through at least the 10th grade, most all the way through high school. As a science news junky and long-time science-watcher, I am also sometimes surprised by how badly a ‘clever’ headline in the real science news misrepresents the nature or conclusions of studies or researches being reported on. Sometimes I’m more dismayed by how much mincemeat is made of the story itself, even when it’s spelled out clearly in the original institutional press release. Don’t science journalists have to know even more about science and critical thinking than the average high schooler?

So I think it’s about time to list the most important aspects of critical thinking about science news articles, so that regular people don’t end up getting fooled by pseudoscience or outright charlatans. Tabloid sensationalism exempted, of course, since that’s just adult comic book comedy. I’m quite sure all MY readers understand that.

When perusing a science news report that draws your interest, establish a few things right away. They should be clearly represented in the lede or first two paragraphs of the article -

1. Determine who is making a claim. Is it the reporter parsing something s/he may not understand, or is it one of the actual researchers?

2. Is what the researcher says something s/he is well qualified to know a lot about?

3. Is the research (and press release) originating from a respectable scientific/medical/research institution?

4. Is the research being reported upon published (or accepted for publication) by a respectable, peer reviewed scientific journal?

5. Is the reporter adding extraneous and possibly sensationalized statements to the researchers’ own conclusions, or doing the interpreting FOR you in a sensationalized way?

Using these five simple methods of critically approaching science news won’t always keep you from getting snowed, but assuming you aren’t inclined to believe that I really am Bigfoot’s love slave, they’ll probably keep you from being too embarrassed at the water cooler.

Or you could always just take a tabloid in to work in a plain paper wrapper, and do the whole comedy routine in the break room at lunch. A good laugh is always good medicine, they say…

Popularity: 11% [?]