Exaggeration Aggravation

“Media distortion damages both science and journalism” is the title of an article that appeared March 27, 2009 in the opinion section of the weekly science and technology news magazine NewScientist.

Along with the claim explicitly stated in the title, the article demonstrates how “media distortion” can cause undue anxiety among their audiences concerning scientific news. Further, it states that scientists who fear being misrepresented will avoid reporting their research to the media. Simon Baron-Cohen, the author of the article and director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge, experienced first-hand the “damage” inaccurate media representation can do when an erroneous headline appeared in The Guardian (a trustworthy UK newspaper) about a 10-year research project he directed; these headlines spawned other false media reports.

Baron-Cohen’s research group measured hormone levels in the amniotic fluid of 235 fetuses; after birth, the children’s social development was observed, including their abilities to communicate, pay attention, and imagine. The study found, “a positive correlation between levels of fetal testosterone (measured via amniocentesis) and the number of ‘autistic traits’ the child shows post-natally.” He further explained, “These [autistic traits] are not necessarily indicative of autism: children with autism have a high number of them, but our children were all developing ‘typically’—that is, they did not have autism.”

The content of the article in The Guardian did not contradict the group’s findings. It was the headlines, photos, and captions (the stuff that gets all the attention from the vast majority of the population who only take time to skim the paper) that accompanied it that were false. Essentially, the distorted headlines said Baron-Cohen and his colleagues found a method for early diagnosis of autism and called into question the ethics of their prenatal research. To worsen the situation, other stories were published based on The Guardian’s bold overstatements. As a result, Baron-Cohen and his team had to “set the record straight” with the public. To conclude the article, he asks, “Should the media be as regulated as scientists since it, too, can do harm?”

Exaggeration in the media is not a new phenomenon—tabloids such as the National Enquirer thrive on gossip and untruth. However, when a supposedly reliable source, such as The Guardian, skews the facts about a scientific matter, it calls into question the credibility of the news medium and the research detailed in the report. Upon reading Baron-Cohen’s report, readers might question why the sensationalized story was perpetuated in other media. At the root of this situation lie the public’s hegemonic ideologies about science and the media’s desire to for an audience.

In Western culture, the standard against which claims of truth are usually compared is scientific or statistical evidence. Researchers are the authorities that inform various media, which in turn, inform the public, on human health threats and discoveries (i.e. the study on child development conducted by Baron-Cohen’s group). The idea that science can be trusted as truth is a hegemony that is reinforced in Westerners’ mentalities in academic circles (even from grade school) and many forms of media, especially the news media. If scientists fabricate or fudge the facts, they can influence the ideas and behaviors of the public. For these reasons, as Baron-Cohen alluded at the end of his article, science has the potential to harm the public.

Similarly, the media influence the ideologies, chosen and unconsciously adopted, of members of society. In the words of media scholars Croteau & Hoynes, “The ideological influence of media can be seen in the absences and exclusions just as much as in the content of the messages,” (Media/ Society, 163). The news media are the lenses through which individuals view the people, events, and situations discussed in their reports. Those who write news media are thus in a position of power in which they may choose to magnify, and hence distort, certain ideas, sometimes with the intention of swaying public opinion. Other times, the motivation to draw in an audience influences journalists and headline writers to distort the truth.

News headlines are like advertisements: their intention is to “sell” the news. By presenting an initially surprising or controversial idea, they try to “wow” the public, in order that they might read further. The headline writer for The Guardian’s report of Baron-Cohen’s group’s research used this technique of exaggeration to play on the widely-held ideology that research and statistics can be trusted as fact.

Baron-Cohen suggests that regulating the media could ensure that fiascos like this don’t happen in the future. Because any media regulation is viewed by many as a threat the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, it is not likely that media regulation will be allowed in the United States. Therefore it is the responsibility of all media consumers to be conscious of the motivations that the media might have—whether it is to influence public opinion about a political idea or gain readership to net higher ratings and bigger advertising profits. One must be willing to think critically about the media’s messages rather than blindly accepting them.