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.

Another face of Haiti

If you've been paying any attention at all to the news in the past few weeks, you've probably noticed how it's been swamped with stories about the Haiti earthquake and its aftermath. Mostly, when I'd think about all of the coverage of Haiti, I'd be thankful that the media was at last paying attention to something that really mattered. But it wasn't until I read this article that it hit me just how much Haiti really has captured their attention.

The New York Times article is simply titled, "Media Struggle to Convey a Disaster." In straightforward and sometimes pained prose, it tells the story of the people behind all of the Haiti news coverage that you've been seeing—the reporters, anchors, and news crews who have been put on-location in Haiti to witness firsthand the destruction there.

Can you imagine seeing something so devastating, then having to talk about it to the whole world? The article opens with a brief account of Steve Harrigan, a correspondent (or on-the-scene reporter) with Fox News. In the course of his job, Harrigan has seen plenty of pretty traumatizing things, from the destruction left by Hurricane Katrina to the violence of several wars. But, when trying to report on the situation in Haiti after seeing the mourning of a mother who had just lost all five of her children, he broke down right on the air.

Since there was a severe shortage of foreign correspondents in Haiti (actually, there was only one), almost all of the correspondents you see reporting from Haiti were shipped in after the earthquake. To get the public its late-breaking news, these crews came in with or even before the aid organizations. And then they found themselves in a world that had literally fallen apart. They arrived well before anyone could begin to put things back together; at a time when the pain was sharp and new, and people were still discovering just how much they had lost.

In a situation like that, reporters lose all ability to be objective observers. They can't even come close to any sort of "ideological middle ground," where they're just giving the facts, because the truth about what they're seeing is made of emotion and physical pain. Their ideology turns primal: Pain and death are wrong; social stratification is irrelevant; coming together to bring relief and restoration is the highest good.

Being there, in the midst of all that chaos, they cease to be just reporters and become part of the story.

·•·

Now, while you might argue that this article is an opportunistic attempt to cast the much-hated-on media in a more positive light—a journalist jumping on the chance to show that reporters are people too—but I'd argue that, even if it is, the article has a point. Reporters are people. Just like they can't help but put a bit of their own personal biases into their stories, they also can't help but be affected by them. (This is especially true, I'd guess, of correspondents.)

So will this knowledge change your life? Probably not. But I know that, at least for me, it'll change the way I think about the media. For instance, instead of separating the reported information from the reporter who is giving it, I'm guessing that I'll find myself looking for the humanness in the news report or article—for how the journalist is affecting the journalism as well as for how the subject might be affecting the journalist. Will looking at the media this way have any great effect on what I get out of it? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it'll be interesting.

peace,
blogdor

Are the Media Making You Racist?

Whether you know it or not, every day the media are shaping our thoughts and behaviors. Media have an especially influential role in forming our views of other ethnicities.

In Kristen Mott's article The Media's Take on Race, the issue of racial representation is discussed. The article documents a panel discussion hosted by the Cleveland-Marshall Black Law Students' Association in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Panelists included Dr.Benjamin Chavis - CEO and Co-Chairman of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, Avery Friedman - famous litigator of civil rights, and Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss - professor at Cleveland-Marshall since 1998. During the panel racist video clips were shown and each panelist spent time discussing the impact the media have on creating stereotypes. One example given by Professor Inniss had to do with racist reporting regarding Hurricane Katrina. She stated that as people were searching for supplies, whites were "finding" items, whereas African Americans were "looting" them. All in all, the article explained how much power the media have in shaping perceptions and beliefs.

This contention is shared by Sociology and Communication experts Crouteau & Hoynes (authors of Media Society). Crouteau & Hoynes discuss how ideology is formed. One process they explain, known as normalization, holds that, through repetition, "media images normalize specific social relations, making certain ways of behaving seem unexceptional" (p.163). In essence, the media define what is "normal". Normalization can occur on various levels, such as gender, age, race, or even occupation.

Essentially, what this all means is that the media images we encounter are heavily influential in the ways we view the world. This can be a negative thing when media images are exclusive or negative. Why? Because, if we see and hear incorrect information long enough, that information becomes true to us. This can create unfair and unprecedented racism among other things.
So, the next time you look through a magazine, or watch TV, pay closer attention to what you see and hear, because it may be defining your life.

xox,
blogdor.