Scientific accuracy in media coverage of recent events is really a big problem today. Which media outlets you find best in being fair while covering controversial topics and which are terrible at it? Where should a person go for a most scientific, skeptical, logic view of everyday life (especially when it revolves around astronomy)?
Nicole Gugliucci (“Noisy astronomer”, blogger, educator, post-doc)
Well, it’s a little biased, but I do love to send my students to Universe Today or Bad Astronomy when it comes to the best coverage of astronomy news. Phil Plait in particular takes a skeptical look at everything that comes into his field of view, so he is a great filter against things that are bogus. That said, you cannot contain his enthusiasm when something scientifically wonderful IS announced! When I’m delving into topics that are not astronomically related, I tend to get a lot of my news from public radio (NPR in the US). There is some pretty good science coverage, but mostly I go there for news on society, politics, and the everyday life stories that effect us without a whole lot of hyperbole. So check out and support your local public radio!
Paul Carr (Space Systems engineer at NASA, podcaster, blogger, investigator)
This is a problem, and I’m afraid it’s not easy finding trustworthy sources. I’m pleasantly surprised when a mainstream media outlet treats a science story with nuance and depth. I’ve been involved in a few space exploration stories, and have even helped brief reporters. In those cases I had a deep knowledge of the subject matter, and I saw their stories so oversimplified that they were wrong. Only a few mainstream reporters understand technical issues, and even if they do, they are under time pressure that prohibits deep investigation and follow up. The other problem is that there seems to a single setting on the dial – the scientific finding is true, because a scientist published it, their institution wrote a press release about it, and now the media is reporting on it. The truth is, that reasonable doubt often exists, and the finding may ultimately fail, or in the worst case, be retracted. Some studies are even fraudulent, although I suspect that this is very rare in astronomy and other fields where there is little money at stake. Due diligence involves consulting independent experts and explaining to the reader what the assumptions, uncertainties and missing pieces are, instead of looking no deeper than the press release. Press releases are very likely not written by the scientists or engineers involved, but by a public relations team whose interest is drumming up attention and funding for their institution. We saw that quite recently in the Fast Radio Burst story, in which one research group thought they had identified a host galaxy for an FRB. The media reported it as if it were fact, when there were actually serious doubters within the radio astronomy community, who have since published contrary findings. The public needs to understand that these professional communities may need a long time to sort things out. Follow up is needed, and should be demanded of any media outlet you read for these stories. I want to point out that are some good, well informed reporters in the space and astronomy world, although many are now in new media. I recommend following Dr. Brian Koberlein’s articles (now in Forbes), and the Astronomy Cast with Pamela Gay and Fraser Cain. Other good communicators include Phil Plait, Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society, and for physics, Dr. Ben Tippett of Titanium Physicists. That is not an exhaustive list, but a good start.
Robert Novella (co-founder and vice-president of New England Skeptical Society, co-host of Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe)
There are many wonderful astronomy news outlets out there. I often chide myself for not looking into them for fully but that’s because I’m so happy with my go-to Astronomy news outlet Phys,org. It covers not only Astronomy very well but all the major hard sciences in a way that’s in the sweet spot for scientifically literate readers. Technical, with no fluff or over-the-top jargon. For a site that is both scientific and skeptical there’s none better than Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy. Phil wins the trifecta in astronomy reporting for the following reasons. 1) Phil knows his shit. His technical details and factoids are spot on. 2) He is a skeptic who knows pseudoscience when he sees it and is not shy about calling it out. 3) His giddy love of science and humor shine through in all is writings.