New study: Both PR departments and the press love to speculate wildly about science, even when the scientists don’t
The attitude of our modern press about science
A new study looking at 630 articles in popular press about the study of astrobiology (the possibility of life on other worlds) found that the press frequently exaggerated the findings, often taking relatively minor results that only vaguely and with great uncertainty suggested the presence of biology to speculate wildly that life had been found.
The research also found that university public relations departments tended to encourage this behavior with their own speculations in press releases. From the paper’s abstract:
Findings reveal that speculations and promises/expectations are more frequent in news articles and press releases compared to academic papers. Speculations about conditions for life and the existence of life beyond Earth are common, particularly in news articles covering exoplanet research, while promises of life detection are rare. Press releases tend to emphasize the significance of research findings and the progress of the field. Speculations and promises/expectations in news articles often occur without attribution to scientists and in quotes of authors of the studies, and slightly less so in quotes of outside experts. [emphasis mine]
The study looked at articles from the New York Times in the U.S., the Guardian in the United Kingdom, Folha and Estadão in Brazil, Público in Portugal, and El País in Spain. It consistently found these news sources consistently exaggerated the discoveries, often speculating with little evidence that the research had found evidence of life.
This paper merely confirms what I have reported repeatedly in the past few years. When scientists report that they may have detected a molecule in Venus’s atmosphere that on Earth is associated with life, the press immediately screams “Life found on Venus!” Or if scientists detect with great uncertainty similar life-related molecules in an exoplanet’s atmosphere and gently suggest it might mean life, the press screams “Exoplanet has life!”
In both these examples the research was very uncertain, and in both later research failed to confirm these conclusions.
Sadly this pattern now applies to almost every scientific result. Uncertain results based not even on observations but on theories are routinely touted these days by both press departments and news outlets as big discoveries, even if they are only describing uncertain theories that may prove true.
In fact, words like “may”, “might,” or “could” in headlines are always a give-away. They tell you that the story is not about an actual discovery, but a speculation that remains unproven. Such stories rarely get linked to here at Behind the Black, and if I do link to them, I spend a lot of time noting the uncertainties and weakness of the research.
If only all news outlets did the same.
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
The attitude of our modern press about science
A new study looking at 630 articles in popular press about the study of astrobiology (the possibility of life on other worlds) found that the press frequently exaggerated the findings, often taking relatively minor results that only vaguely and with great uncertainty suggested the presence of biology to speculate wildly that life had been found.
The research also found that university public relations departments tended to encourage this behavior with their own speculations in press releases. From the paper’s abstract:
Findings reveal that speculations and promises/expectations are more frequent in news articles and press releases compared to academic papers. Speculations about conditions for life and the existence of life beyond Earth are common, particularly in news articles covering exoplanet research, while promises of life detection are rare. Press releases tend to emphasize the significance of research findings and the progress of the field. Speculations and promises/expectations in news articles often occur without attribution to scientists and in quotes of authors of the studies, and slightly less so in quotes of outside experts. [emphasis mine]
The study looked at articles from the New York Times in the U.S., the Guardian in the United Kingdom, Folha and Estadão in Brazil, Público in Portugal, and El País in Spain. It consistently found these news sources consistently exaggerated the discoveries, often speculating with little evidence that the research had found evidence of life.
This paper merely confirms what I have reported repeatedly in the past few years. When scientists report that they may have detected a molecule in Venus’s atmosphere that on Earth is associated with life, the press immediately screams “Life found on Venus!” Or if scientists detect with great uncertainty similar life-related molecules in an exoplanet’s atmosphere and gently suggest it might mean life, the press screams “Exoplanet has life!”
In both these examples the research was very uncertain, and in both later research failed to confirm these conclusions.
Sadly this pattern now applies to almost every scientific result. Uncertain results based not even on observations but on theories are routinely touted these days by both press departments and news outlets as big discoveries, even if they are only describing uncertain theories that may prove true.
In fact, words like “may”, “might,” or “could” in headlines are always a give-away. They tell you that the story is not about an actual discovery, but a speculation that remains unproven. Such stories rarely get linked to here at Behind the Black, and if I do link to them, I spend a lot of time noting the uncertainties and weakness of the research.
If only all news outlets did the same.
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
What was that cadence (Jody Call) about how a recruiter lied to them as well? Salty language though.
My favorite was from the USMC- about how “Popeye was a sissy too.”
“”the press frequently exaggerated the findings””
They also just make stuff up.
I’m guessing it’s an old problem. Niven and Pournelle had a scene in Lucifer’s Hammer. Near as I can recall the scene, the reporter is trying to talk the astronomer into a documentary, and the astronomer brought up Kahoutek:
“‘That’s our fault,’ Harvey admitted. “We interview one guy who says Kahoutek is going to be the Big Christmas Comet. We interview another guy who says, well, it’s a comet, but you won’t see much without a good set of field glasses or a telescope. Guess which one we quoted on the six o’clock news?'”
Point being that the press has to make it sexy to get ratings, so that they can get sponsors. (And public media is as bad in its own way – for sponsorships, “advertisers” and “donors” are functionally identical.) That’s inevitably going to have an impact on content, even without a sponsor trying to influence the story – the reporter, almost in the next breath, tartly rebuts a criticism of one of his stories by pointing out that the sponsor of that piece exercised creative control….
Robert wrote: “Sadly this pattern now applies to almost every scientific result.”
In almost every field of science. A few years ago on the radio, one station’s morning rush-hour news crew reported that a study about sex meant that having lots and lots of sex was good for us. That same morning they got an interview with one of the authors, and he said that this was not at all what their report meant. That same station was starting to suggest the same assumed result during the lunchtime news-hour, then the evening rush-hour news crew was again full on reporting that lots and lots of sex was good for us. The noon news crew may have heard the morning news or maybe talked to the morning crew, but the afternoon crew clearly was starting from scratch, making up their own conclusions.
“In fact, words like “may”, “might,” or “could” in headlines are always a give-away. They tell you that the story is not about an actual discovery, but a speculation that remains unproven.”
The scientific reports themselves can be misleading or outright biased. Terms like “linked to” or “associated with” can mean that a paper used some sort of proxy that was measured in order to drawing conclusions about some factor that is difficult to measure or didn’t give desired results when it was measured. (Homework assignment: are these two terms used like that in the paper Robert linked to?) The uncertainty of science, as Robert says whenever he uses that phrase, is that a paper may be over certain about its results and conclusion, but more than that, it may not be good science, either.
Here is a scientist-statistician who sees that science is broken:
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/perspectives/william-briggs-why-science-is-broken
So, what happens when the study/experiment/report is flawed and then the news reports their own conclusion outside of what the authors had said? Now we get two levels of ambiguity in addition to our own misinterpretation of what the news report said.
We live in a world in which predicting the future is of vital importance. “If I go there, I will find food and get to live another day.” “If I manufacture a million cars, I can sell almost all of them for enough profit so my company survives another year.” Science helps us to understand the universe around us so that we can make more accurate predictions, and we can make strong buildings and create cities secure enough that very few predators (e.g. lions, tigers, or bears) enter and eat us, our young, or our pets.
But if science is broken, will our future airplanes be safe? Will we spend too many resources on the wrong things and end up, as a species, as mountain lion food? Will our doctors hand out good advice or will they turn a minor new flu into an economic and social disaster, resulting in millions more deaths than would have occurred if we did all the usual procedures for mitigating the flu — and can we ever trust our doctors, scientists, and vaccines ever again?
It is of vital importance that our science be trustworthy. It is important that we understand we cannot follow “the” science, because it does not lead, only informs. Science must not be confused for morality, ethics, or ideals. Science does not know good from bad, right from wrong, or virtue from evil. But we must get reliable information from science — and the news — so that we can make those determinations ourselves.
Oh dear
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-science-people.html
“But as a philosopher of science and public policy, I argue that some forms of openness can actually reduce trust.Another example was when the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked in 2009, leaking thousands of emails and forcing transparency about the work of climate scientists. This led to alarm among some members of the public, who believed they had found evidence that data contradicting the idea of global warming was being covered up.”
“Numerous inquiries found that there was no wrongdoing and that the East Anglia scientists were engaging in normal scientific practices. But the publication of data and correspondence without adequate context led some to see a conspiracy.”
But your stock buying–that we will watch
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-stock-ai.html
Jeff Wright: This article at phys.org is utter garbage and an outright lie. It claims the climate gate emails included “no wrongdoing and that the East Anglia scientists were engaging in normal scientific practices.” This is wrong. I’ve reviewed the entire set of climate gate emails and they demonstrated unequivocally that these climate scientists were involved in a conspiracy to silence and destroy anyone who questioned their results.
This writer is of the same ilk of those who claimed the Hunter laptop was fake, or those who claimed the Russians colluded with Trump. He makes claims without evidence or in defiance of evidence in order to slander those who disagree with him.
Why are you providing his work a bullhorn?
My reading of Jeff Wright’s comment is that it is not giving the Gaeites a platform, but drawing attention to their deficiencies.
Exactly.
The technical articles I take more or less at face value. Theoretical physics–in the gray backet.
Green crud–I post that here to expose you all to what is still out there so as to rally you. Trump won’t always be President.