Why Evidence Doesn't Matter



Given that a good reporter is supposed to be both truthful and balanced, how should journalists cover an issue when opposing camps refuse to agree on the very nature of the truth? (In other words, in this current political climate, how should journalists cover literally any issue at all?)
As psychology professor Derek J. Koehler explained last year in a piece for New York Times Sunday Review, “standard journalistic practice” is to represent both sides of an issue, but when the vast majority of qualified experts share one stance on a topic, while only a tiny minority disagree, giving equal weight to each viewpoint can be extremely misleading.
The BBC has adopted “weight of evidence” reporting, which attempts a compromise by giving airtime to experts with both perspectives, while also being careful to inform the public that one school of thought is far more widely accepted. However, Koehler had his suspicions about how effective this really was, so he decided to put it to a test.
 
Koehler had one group of subjects read a brief numerical overview of a discussion among experts at a University of Chicago panel on economic issues, which broke down how many panelists took each stance on a given subject. Koehler’s other group got the same information, along with a quote from an expert in each camp, backing up their opinion. For some issues, opinions were more or less evenly divided. But a discussion about a carbon tax found 93 economic experts in favor, 5 undecided, and just 2 opposed.
 
Unfortunately, Koehler found that just reading a quote from one of those two anti-carbon taxers was enough to deeply confuse his experimental group. People who got those additional quotes were more likely to consider the discussion unresolved, and less likely to believe there was enough consensus to guide policy.
 
Koehler suggests a few possible explanations: seeing quotes from participants on each side allows us to dramatize a debate in our heads—and it’s easier to picture that exchange as a one-on-one showdown, instead of ninety-three-on-two. It could also come down to the human brain’s blind spot when it comes to accurately weighing proportions. Or it could be that our brains are quick to pick up on any perceived conflict, without pausing to run the numbers.
Factor in the conflict-hungry 24-hour news cycle, and maybe it’s no wonder that no amount of experts seem capable of getting us all on the same page. British-born comedian and Last Week Tonight host John Oliver would agree.
 
On a May 2014 segment, Oliver lamented a study that found roughly a quarter of Americans were skeptical of manmade climate change--in contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts and mountains of data.
“And I think I know why so many people think it’s open to debate,” he added, “because on TV, it is.” Oliver criticized cable news shows for staging countless one-on-one showdowns between a climate change skeptic and a climate change believer (usually Bill Nye). If just reading a quote is enough to get Koehler’s subjects swept up in the heady emotions of a war of the words, you have to wonder about the effect of staring into the angry faces of two yelling men in bowties.
 
“Weight of evidence” would be a handy quick fix—if it worked. Unfortunately, it looks like there are no quick fixes in sight. So until journalism discovers some remarkable new innovation, perhaps the fairest, most accurate way to discuss climate change is the one John Oliver used to close out that May 2014 segment—accent not required.


Check out Robb’s new book and more 


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Robert Frost Quandary, or How Irrational Thinking Might Save Your Life

Image
You stumble out of the wilderness, having had no contact with humans for at least ten days. You’re weak from hunger and fatigue and you find yourself at a crossroads, power lines stretching out along each of the separate roadways. It’s decision time. You think about Robert Frost’s poem, and wonder if his advice to take the road less traveled might not just lead to your demise. What do you do, or more importantly, which brain system should you use to make this crucial decision? Daniel Kahneman, famed psychologist, winner of the Nobel prize for prospect theory and author of Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow might be the one guy to call, assuming your existential crossroads gets cellphone reception. Kahneman explains that we have two systems for making decisions. He refers to them simply as System 1 and System 2. System 1 is reflexive, automatic, and impulsive. It takes a constant reading of your surroundings and generates short-term predictions, all operating on a level beneath yo
Read more

Who Are You: Does Personality Change as We Age?

Image
Are you the same “you” that you were twenty years ago? Thirty? Forty? What about fifty years ago? While science still struggles to quantify, measure, and categorize personality, some have a different question: how stable is personality in the first place? Do the high school version of yourself and the retiree version of yourself still have some common immutable core? It depends how you look at it , says a paper by lead author Rodica Damian of University of Houston and her co-authors Marion Spengler of the University of Tuebingen in Germany, Brent W. Roberts of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and UH grad student Andreea Sutu. The paper in question goes by the catchy title “Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years.” Damian and her colleagues compared the results for 1,795 U.S. adults who had taken a personality test as teenagers and then again, five decades years later. The team found that yes, there is a
Read more

The Best Painkiller Isn't What You Think It Is

Image
When we say that listening to the right song makes us feel better, usually we mean it in terms of emotions. However, a new study from the University of Utah Health suggests that combining certain painkillers with certain music boosts the pain-fighting effect of the medication a measurable amount. This recent bit of research was conducted specifically on models recreating two types of pain: inflammatory and post-surgical. (Nerve pain, or neuropathic pain, was not addressed.) Low doses of four medications were explored: ibuprofen, cannabidiol, levetiracetam, and NAX 5055. As for music, the researchers went with one artist only, while the control groups were given one of the four drugs and subjected to white noise. What music would you choose for optimal painkilling effect? The experimenters went with Mozart. (Interestingly, the phrase “Mozart therapy” already exists, referring to the beneficial effect ol’ Amadeus can have on patients with epilepsy. For instance, a 2018 st
Read more