On 11 Jan 2011 at 15:52, Jim Clark wrote: > The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) aired a radio interview with Seth > Mnookin, who has a book out on > the vaccine - autism controversy. In the part I heard, he gave a very > reasonable response on some of the > claims made and harm done by the anti-vaccine group. The audio is at: > http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/01/11/panic-virus---seth-mnookin/ > > Some of his final points included the false impression given by so-called > "balanced reporting" on > controversial issues, and the importance of having reporters who understand > science.
It's ironic that it's the CBC which brings us an interview in which the point is made that "balanced reporting" is not always a good (or responsible) idea. I distinctly recall that when the CBC recently reported on the breaking news of the Wakefield fraud, they first let us hear from autism experts opposed to the theory that vaccines cause autism. Then they turned for a sound bite from another sort of expert, a naturopath (a naturopath!!!), who predictably claimed that there were still lots of reasons to fear vaccination. Now that's balanced reporting. The problem, it seems to me, is that it's difficult for reporters and the general public to distinguish between true experts and those who falsely claim to be. So reporters present both sides, believing them to be equally valid, and the public accepts them the same way. Wakefield would be a particularly difficult case. Here we have an apparently respected medical doctor, at a respected hospital, with a research paper on a seemingly plausible hypothesis published in one of the most respected of medical journals. Long before the current fraud revelations, the untrustworthiness of his claim was well known in the scientific community, due to the weakness of his paper, its lack of evidence, and the existence of substantial contrary evidence. We knew the claim that vaccination causes autism is junk science. But how could reporters and the public know that? So the two sides are given equal time and receive equal respect. Siimilarly, when naturopaths and chiropractors tell us that fluoridation of drinking water is poisoning us, when psychoanalysts tell us that it's our parents who messed us up, or when gender feminists assert that Einstein stole credit for the theory of relativity from his wife, reporters report and people listen. Because they perceive those proponents of nutty theories to be experts too. Stephen -------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca --------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7845 or send a blank email to leave-7845-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
