February 9, 2012 | 11:17 AM | By

Sh*t Journalists Say

FILED UNDER: Straight talk

There’s a perennial debate about who’s to blame for widespread confusion about the state of climate science – scientists incapable of speaking to a normal human being or journalists incapable of grasping the simplest scientific concept. Last year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a panel discussion of climate communication devolved into prominent scientists and journalists engaging in behavior I’d sooner expect from my five year old (“Your fault!” “No, yours!”). The stereotyping and finger-pointing even showed up at Science Online 2012, a group I expected to be well past this.

Just personally, as a scientist-turned-journalist, it’s an argument I find rather pointless (I’ve rarely seen meaningful forward progress come from such blame games) and frustrating beyond words. That said, since I’ve posted the Sh*t Scientsts Say, this is only fair. It’s a list of words or phrases that journalists use (abuse?) but people never actually say, posted on the Fast Horse blog. Bob Ingrassia posts examples taken from Minneapolis’ Star Tribune paired with how he might use them at home. Here’s a taste:

Largely
Strib: “Construction activity last year was slightly better in 2011 than 2010, largely because of an increase in apartment construction.”

Journo Dad: “I’m largely done with fixing dinner.”

Critics contend
Strib: “Critics contend that young, developing businesses and smaller websites could be saddled with expensive litigation costs.”

Journo Dad: “Critics contend that you kids don’t hop into the tub when you’re supposed to.”

Altercation
Strib: “Police arrested a 22-year-old St. Paul man Sunday in connection with the death of another man, apparently after an altercation.”

Journo Dad: “I don’t want you kids getting into an altercation over who goes first.”

Ingrassia’s list goes on to include probe, blaze, and “white stuff” (which I failed at first to recognize as flowery longhand for the simple four-letter word “snow”), but is dwarfed by Mimi Burkhardt’s More Cliches Than You Can Shake a Stick At. Both are a good reminder that even the best professional writers and journalists can write or say stupid sh*t that nobody else understands. Indeed, the fact that the Sh*t People Say meme has been so popular suggests that just about any group you pick has jargon and slang that can render speakers unintelligible or ridiculous to outsiders. It’s not just scientists.

  • http://radiokate.com/ Radiokate

    I’m always annoyed by article that talk about the mercury rising to x degrees. Most thermometers no longer contain mercury, and even if they did, it still wouldn’t be a phrase you’d use in normal conversation. 

  • Morgawr

    I’d like to suggest that the “fault” goes beyond style, and into content.  When a scientist or a journalist presents data and valid interpretation, and also presents a political or policy stance, the audience easily conflates the two.  

    If a person has a policy stance against the author (such as the US should not act unilaterally so long as China is given “developing nation” exemptions), then the author rejects not only the policy suggested, but questions everything that supports it.  The science becomes motivated, serving an interest.  And many readers will generalize beyond an individual or organization, to all scientists and journalists (e.g. the “liberal media”, which scientists easily become a part of).

    How can you separate the two when they’re clearly linked?  Don’t know.  Perhaps by presenting  policy debate c;ear;y separated from science issues.  Maybe climate articles are informed too much by scientists (which automatically makes it the field for debate and denialists), and not enough by economists, maritime law, shipping concerns, global political scientists, military analysts, and others?

  • Heather Goldstone

    I find it interesting that you think science is more subject to debate than economics or politics.

  • Morgawr

    No, not at all!  I didn’t think I suggested that valid scientific conclusions are up for debate (aside from the usual rational, objective, scientific methodology and analysis). 

    But, if asking “who’s to blame for widespread confusion about the state of climate science” I think general public doesn’t see the valid scientific findings as distinct and separate from proposals of what we should do about it.  These always appear together, naturally–sometimes with scientists advocating policy positions.  Once that happens, or is even perceived as happening, the general public mistrusts the scientist, and by generalization, the entire discipline.  I’m suggesting that if the public perceived the body of scientists as limiting their statements to “this happened, this is happening, and under these conditions this will happen”, completely dispassionate about the fate of the planet, that the public would, hopefully, be compelled to accept the science.

    Then, separately, from the climatologist, debating what is to be done about it — this would be contentious, and there are multiple perspectives and more points open to debate than the science, but we would get at the heart of why the public is confused, and their true concerns.  And this would require addressing those true concerns.

    A few days ago, you cited something like not asking your dentist to diagnose your heart condition.  To take your metaphor very, very far, here I think we have don’t ask your climatologist to prescribe a bitter socio-economic pill.  Diagnose, dispassionately, but coordinate with the other specialists for treatment.  Patients often have poor compliance with necessary treatments because their psychological needs and disproportionate concerns for side effects haven’t been properly addressed.

    You said you find this journalist vs. scientist blame game unproductive — so sorry I’ve gone on too long.  This is just what I think of as one problem in reaching those who are confused (or denying, or tuned out) lies.

  • Heather Goldstone

    My turn to back-pedal. I don’t find earnest, civil discussion about communicating science unproductive or tiresome. Quite the opposite! I wish we could have more of this and less of the finger-pointing.
    The issue you raise is an important one, and hotly debated among scientists, as well as with journalists and the public. Many scientists feel their efforts at dispassionately presenting the facts and likely future prospects have fallen on deaf ears. So they’ve gotten more passionate, and perhaps crossed into the socio/political/economic realm – often at the urging of journalists and the public, and often with repercussions for his/her scientific career.
    IMHO, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for communicating about climate (or any other) science. Every scientist has to find his/her comfort zone, as does every reader of scientific information. If one scientist is too hot-headed for your liking, look for one that sticks to the facts (like getting a second opinion, to continue the theme of medical analogies).