Junk science now dominates the reporting of the propaganda press
The Sciences, when the goal of science journalism
was to report real discoveries
When I started my career as a science journalist in the early 1990s, Peter Brown, the editor of award-winning magazine The Sciences (now sadly discountinued), assigned me the job of writing short news pieces. He pointed at a three-foot-high pile of press releases, and suggested I go through them to find some scientific discovery worth reporting.
As I went through this pile each month, I found that 90% described results that while interesting certainly did not merit any news coverage. Many described theories that “might” or “could” be true, hardly examples of solid new knowledge. I would find a handful of releases worth a news report, while the remaining 90% would get thrown in the dumpster.
Unfortunately, limited space in the magazine often meant that only one of the stories I thought worthwhile would be reported, but it also meant the story we picked was of real significance. The reader was guaranteed to read about important research results, because the technology then forced us to be discriminating.
That was then. Today, things are very different. The web allows modern news outlets to report about practically every press release they get. Nothing gets thrown away. If anything, new outlets today relish reporting on the least significant science results, merely because the scientists speculate about some amazing final events that “might,” “could,” or “may” happen, if their theories are right. The press eats this junk science up, because it produces great clickbait that, while as vapid as cotton candy, sounds really cool or exciting. That these speculations have no basis in reality is irrelevant.
To give you an idea of what I mean, here are a few examples from our modern propaganda press that I have gathered in just the past week:
- New York Times: Onionlike Space Explosion May Be a New Type of Supernova
- MSN: Cheese before bed might actually be giving you nightmares
- New Atlas: Our nearest stellar neighbor may have a habitable world
- Cosmos: Missing space sulphur: have chemists solved the mystery?
- Sky & Telescope: Saturn’s Moon Enceladus Might Have Weird “Space Rainbows”
- SciTechDaily: Why the Next Solar Superstorm Could Hit Satellites Even Harder
- New Scientist: There might be a ‘Planet Y’ hiding in the outer solar system
- Physics World: Exoplanets suffering from a plague of dark matter could turn into black holes
- Space.com: Is water really a necessary ingredient for life? Aliens may swim in truly exotic pools
- Space.com: Discovery of 250 ‘mini galaxies’ could help scientists pin down the nature of dark matter
- Space.com: Hidden fault beneath Canada could trigger massive earthquake after 12,000 years of silence
- Space.com: The Milky Way’s faintest satellite may not be what astronomers thought
In every one of these cases a close read of the story, as well as the original press release that prompted it, reveals that there really is nothing there. The scientists are proposing something that “might” or “could” be true, but they haven’t actually observed such things happening. Instead, they have used computer models or concocted a theory (based on limited data) to propose a wild future event, such as giant earthquakes, new solar superstorms, new types of supernovae, a new explanation for nightmares, and so on. Our propaganda press then latches onto these proposed (but unproven) cool events like a dog grabbing a treat, to write empty stories about nothing real.
As you can see, Space.com is an especially bad actor in this game. Even today I could have added two more stories (here and here) from that outlet. It appears its science reporters have relatively little depth in their knowledge, and there are no experienced editors there helping them distinguish between the wheat and the chaff. Everything gets published, even if the research is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as research.
Worse, this focus on what “may” happen means the reporting focuses less on what was actually learned, The science reporting ends up teaching the reader nothing.
Space.com of course is not alone in this. It is now the routine at every major news outlet. The goal isn’t to report new discoveries, but to shape those discoveries around a narrative that might be true, but just as easily could be junk.
For example, let’s take the New York Times story. I had read the original press release, and found the conclusions of these scientists wanting. They might have seen evidence of a new type of supernova, but the data was sparse, there were too many assumptions involved, and the conclusions were simple one of many that could be possible. It was interesting work, of some significance to astronomers, but if I had read this in that pile of press releases in the 1990s, it would have ended up in the dumpster.
In fact, I did put it in the dumpster, now, as I did not post this story on Behind the Black. And had I decided to post it, I would have couched the results in much more uncertain terms than the New York Times, noting the flimsy basis for those final conclusions.
The NY Times however focused on the theories of the scientists — because they sounded cool — so that its reporting of the actual results was confusing and unclear. What mattered was that “a new type of supernova” might have been discovered, “very, very different to anything we’ve observed before.”
A short (and very incomplete) list of false political narratives
pushed in recent years by the propaganda press
This pattern is repeated in all the stories above. It is also repeated in almost all the non-science news stories from these mainstream outlets, which is why I now refer to them as the “propaganda press.” The term is very apt, as “propaganda” is defined as “information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.” Their interest isn’t in reporting news, scoops of real discoveries, but of pushing narratives. In the case of the stories above, the narrative is almost always to harp on some exciting or awful future outcome, whether or not there is any real chance it may happen.
In the case of politics and general reporting, the narrative now with all the above outlets focuses almost entirely on one simple idea; How can we write our story to support the Democratic Party while condemning Donald Trump and the Republicans? This game has become so obvious it is now laughable, which is why an entire new cadre of conservative news sources have sprung up. The public has recognized the game, and has looked for alternative news sources to get better information.
Sadly, when it comes to science reporting, I don’t think the public has yet made the same realization. Maybe this short essay by me here will help wake everyone up.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Possibly the best example of the intellectualization of science that serves a political agenda presented by one of the premiere science presenters.
https://youtube.com/shorts/80rKfhdcGn4?si=L9kLbcqgR7JWg06A
Stupid and getting stupider.
Oh, MY! Several things come to mind. Many of these “scientists” and science journalists would be right at home using the vocabulary of weather prediction: maybe, perhaps, chance of, partly. There are places where the world where the weather “forecaster” can, and does, interchange “partly cloudy” and “partly sunny” for weeks.
The Degrassi video reminds me of Riley Gaines and PhD anthropologist Gabby Yearwood.
Many moons ago, I had a double college major of Spanish and Archaeology. I eventually learned that I could not pay a mortgage, or any other significant expense, pursuing a degree in archaeology. I was able to participate in two excavations. One was on the San Francisco Peninsula; the other was a Mayan City in Belize. Every professor, teacher, even a visiting lecturer knew that the skeletons revealed all kinds of information. Especially the gender. That a PhD anthropologist would adopt the woke insanity is, well, sad, and highly laughable.
One of my favorite professors had a great way of explaining things. He would say:
“This (XYZ) we know.”
“This thing (XYZ) we THINK we know.”
“This other thing (XYZ)….we have no idea what this is.”
Robert wrote: “In every one of these cases a close read of the story, as well as the original press release that prompted it, reveals that there really is nothing there. The scientists are proposing something that ‘might’ or ‘could’ be true, but they haven’t actually observed such things happening. Instead, they have used computer models or concocted a theory (based on limited data) …”
Fantasy as news. An interesting idea. Apparently, it sells.
The ghost of Kiev at least was a positive “story”
To be fair, the “Space.com: Is water really a necessary ingredient for life? Aliens may swim in truly exotic pools” article is an interesting report of a newly published paper… ( And in my wheelhouse of interest).
I find a great filter for BS is to completely disregard anything with a headline ending with a “?” , the answer is inevitably “no”
Why do this: Funding.
That and we want unusual things to be true:
https://futurism.com/interstellar-object-light
I wonder if comets can have phosphorus…
The more titillating the headline, the more clicks it receives. When you get paid by the click, you will say just about anything for a paycheck.
Once upon a time, a newspaper would be purchased based upon its reputation for journalism without embellishment. Like “clear water” being able to see the bottom through the lens of truth… (unless the water is just too deep to see the bottom)
Click bait has so mudded the waters that you can’t even see your hand an inch under the surface, the reflection is unrecognizable to the point that we listen/rely on what all the others say to form our opinion. (tabloid journalism)
The supreme court ruled on the first amendment… that it’s constitutional to lie, as long as no one is hurt by it. Politicians have turned gaslighting into an art form. The rewards and benefits in public office are better than you can imagine.
People lie to their spouses, kids, employers, friends, and most of all to themselves. It’s only illegal if you benefit personally for the lie. Slander for revenge, financially or bear false witness to in prison or hurt another… Or to lie under oath, to the police, or IRS. (Unfortunately Congress passed a law allowing our government to lie to the people whenever they feel it’s necessary, which has been proven to be almost always.)
When it was shown that public servants without ethics could get away with almost anything, they spread the good times to other friends… It’s called a public private partnership in which corporations also lie for profit, (we’ve tested it, it’s safe and effective“ as people die). The banks changed their terms and agreements turning you into part of the lie… you are no longer a customer but a investor! And the interest your money makes is now a dividend! (and we all know in hard times investments go bad, so sorry)
The truth is people love lies, it’s called fiction.
The make-believe world of movies, TV, video games, books all made up in an imaginary world of an author.
And we all crave it.
You can go to Wikipedia under the topic of “false flags” and read about the big lies that cost millions of lives.
Here is an hour and a half cato institute presentation with three guests on the topic of lies in 2021.
Although this rabbit hole has excellent points, you’ll enjoy it for the fictional presentation on Trump and Covid… Much of which has been proven to be a lie as they debated how to hold Trump responsible while not violating his right to lie. (keep your masks on at all times… Except while you’re eating because everyone knows you can’t catch Covid while you’re eating)
https://www.cato.org/events/right-lie-presidents-other-liars-first-amendment
Space.com
Owned by the media company Future Publishing Limited in England (as of 2018,) where they manage a “portfolio of over 200 media brands.” (The usual suspects…)
As a business with their fingers in many pies, they are highly concerned with slavery and the gender pay gap, and issue yearly corporate reports congratulating themselves.
Who here actually ever goes to space.com?
Here is how I saw it unfold. Unfortunately I can only use the Nature Magazine Citation Process. All of their stuff has moved behind a Pay Wall. Shame. So here are the first two I read, by citation.
The first article that I saw broke the news that something was wrong, NATURE cited this article
Crocker, J. The road to fraud starts with a single step. Nature 479, 151 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/479151a
The next year I saw this one.
https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a When I read it there was a complete breakdown of the % of non reproducible articles by Discipline with Psychology “studies” showing a whopping 9-% PLUS of studies that could not be reproduced. Here is the actual citation.
Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
You have to pay to view it now, it looks like. Dayam I wish I had save that actual page. There is a way to do it too.
What I gleaned from this was the NATURE was OUTTING themselves. They make their bread and butter with SCIENCE articles. They were confronted with the uncomfortable fact that a LOT of what they were pushing was not reproducible. The very FIRST criteria of anything purporting to be a SCIRNTIFIC study is that any reader anywhere, if they have the resources can REPLICATE that study. ON average around 75% of what NATURE was publishing as not replicable. OUCH.
The whole topic, over the last few years has drawn in the usual politically minded cover stories, some even denying that the problem is real. Here are some other links of interest.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/replication-crisis. Pretty much lays out the issue up to 2023. regarding psychology and behavioral studies.
Vox has a fairly detailed overview, which I now have a hard time finding sources for.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics
For those who don’t want to bother digging, well there is always Wikipedia, Not the best source but a wonderful place to start any digging, (Which is how ALL encyclopedias should be viewed.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
This Wikipedia article points back to the first article of 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
Now! Yippee Tai KAIYAY! There is now an entirely new field of study called Metascience. This my first read of this. I hadn’t seen it until I started going back through my bookmarks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience
Absolutely amazing that this issue was identified as early as 1966. Good Gawd I was eleven years old, and listening to my Farther speak to his friends in the evenings about The Velikovsky Affair. Dr Velikovsky challenged a huge portion of what academia accepted as “essential truths” about ancient history from the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great all the way back to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. Many volumes. But really great reads.
For all of you that may be alarmed or worried about this entire mess, Be GLAD, there is now a “MOVEMENT” to combat this. Join UP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science
It is important. The pull quote that really stands in the way is this from the last article there.
“The conflict that led to the Open Science movement is between the desire of scientists to have access to shared resources versus the desire of individual entities to profit when other entities take part of their resources.[15]”
“entities” can be individuals. Tesla vs Edison is a tremendous example. Another one is the very long drawn out patent battle between the Wright Brothers and Glenn Hammond Curtiss, (Wright vs Curtiss) over just exactly what constituted the Wright patent on three aixs control of aircraft in flight.
The Wright Brothers believed they owned the rights to anything that controlled the Roll Access, while Curtis invented the Aileron, whereas the Wright Bros. used wing warping. Curtis was sued over his Aileron as a patent infringement. So the conflict is REAL. And one’s “inventions” due to ones own research should be protected intelluctual property, should it not?
So some company produces research that leads to a possible treatment of a disease. They patent a product that sells HUGE based on the SCIENTIFIC reseach that led to that product. It is very easy to imagine the ENGINE of defenses that the company will throw at anyone who can establish that the original SCIENTIFIC research just go it wrong.
This whole replication crisis is at the heart of every article I read in Behing the Black like this one. So I thought I’d present the foundation of the problem as a backdrop.
https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz
That led me backwards to this one, which at that time I was able to read.
Then there was this one
I thought Boulton and Bleriot invented ailerons.
The Velikovsky Affair
Not sure when I stumbled across that. Middle-school age, I think. It makes great reading, but not such a great theory, imho. Just a gut feeling, but if the Earth’s orbit had changed during semi-historical time, our calendar would be very different.
I remember the grocery store check out lanes, before computers, had print tabloids with “click bate” headlines in large print to draw attention to the publication. One headline was “Woman finds lost virginity”. No I didn’t buy it.
Andrew Winter is right. Science is broken, yes. It isn’t just that science is uncertain (even well established knowledge about the universe is subject to change, as keeps happening with gravity from Aristotle, to Galileo, to Newton, to Einstein), it is that scientists have gotten sloppy. For example, peer review has stopped working as it had been intended to work. Also, “hypothesis testing” does not even test the hypothesis, but it is used as yet another means to be over-certain about the validity of the hypothesis.
However, Robert’s post is about how the reporting of science is also broken. Rather than reportingwhat is, we get many articles telling uswhat might be. We do not make good decisions about life, livelihoods, or politics from what might be. Our decisions are better when they are made with confidence about how the world is.
Instead, we get reports of science that give us “may,” “might,” or “could.” These are uncertainty words. News has become entertainment, sometimes in the Stephen King sense. We are entertained by reports of possibilities or wishful thinking. Max got it right. The news has become fiction. Gone are the days when Walter Cronkite would tell us at the end of his reports, “And that’s the way it is.” He was replaced by Dan Rather, who felt he had to make up news in order to make his political enemies look bad (even before Obama said to punish his enemies and reward his friends).
So now we are stuck with broken reporting of broken science.
From Robert‘s post: “Their interest isn’t in reporting news, scoops of real discoveries, but of pushing narratives.”
Isn’t the news supposed to present us with the facts (who, what, where, when, why, how), and we use our ability of how to think in order to come to our own conclusions? But now, we are told what to think (Orange Man bad, Democrats God, global warming man-made, climate change deadly). If we are told what to think, then isn’t it most likely that we are not being told alternate facts that would cause us to question the narratives? Thus, reality has become malleable: a man can be a woman and vice versa. Delusions have become the new reality, the new normal. And we know it to be true, because The New Science™ says it could be that it might maybe be true.
Andrew Winter: Sorry for the late reply. I was on the road.
First, I AGREE with everything you write about our broken intellectual community and how it does research today. I have written about this repeatedly here at BtB.
Second, as Edward noted, my essay was specifically commenting on the broken nature of modern science reporting. Journalists are supposed to be skeptical and question the claims made in press releases. Almost none do nowadays. If they did, the problems you outline within the science community would be more effectively addressed, because someone would be challenging them. Sadly, almost no one is (except for me and a few faint voices elsewhere),