Can I pull you away from the Sunday comics for just a few minutes? Thank you.
Let me begin by saying I don't think I have to tell you that news feeds and social media are literally teeming these days with clickbait concerning UFO's, cryptids, skinwalkers and any other number of paranormal topics. Such as it is, the news landscape is also rife with so-called "new" archaeological discoveries that defy time and logic, as well as stories about astronomy, chemistry, health and other popular subjects that just lack common sense. "The sky's the limit" it's been said, and as a result, if we take these tales at face value, we'll believe just about anything that's spoon fed to us. Today, we call it "misinformation", but personally I believe it's a simple case of crappy -- and very irresponsible -- journalism.
A prescient science-journalist by the name of Watson Davis published an article in a 1950 issue of SCIENCE NEWS LETTER entitled, "Stories That Should Be Handled With Care". In it he listed a number of subjects prone to pseudoscientific claims and cautioned other journalists to thoroughly research these topics before writing about them, as well as adding, if it seems dubious it probably is. Wise words to not only write to, but to live by.
That of course, is not to say that some things that sound outrageous or at least implausible at first can't end up being fact, which has happened countless times throughout history. In his book “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible” (1962), respected science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke wrote what were to become known as his "Three Laws" regarding science and technology:
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Just try disagreeing with someone who "knows" that they've seen a UFO and you'll know what I mean. I was convinced I saw one once, too, but it turned out to be a trick of light, and only after taking time to find out what had actually caused the phenomenon. I also sometimes wonder if pseudoscience is the same area of the brain where political thought resides!
But, I digress; back to the article. Written by Kendrick Frasier, esteemed editor of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER for 44-plus years until his passing in 2022, he comments on Davis' important message by writing:
"The list really does include many, if not most, of the subjects that have typically resulted in sensationalized claims that seldom stand up to scientific scrutiny. This list isn't arbitrary. It was created by top science editors' long experience with such stories and seeing how tabloids [no internet back then, folks!] and other popular publications that care little for scientific accuracy or scientific responsibility handle them."
To find out which topics are on this list, and more reason to take what's served up to you using a big BS filter, take a look at the article below from the current SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (March/April 2024).
So, the next time you read or see something that sounds too outrageous to be true, don't simply count on a single source like FactCheck -- take the time to verify with multiple recognized and reliable sources. And no, as much fun as I have listening to it, COAST2COAST radio and THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER should not be considered "recognized", as the first usually presents the stories to be left entirely up to the listener's discretion (a major reason why paranormal claims go viral), and the second -- well, do I really have to explain that one? But then, according to Clarke, if it walks and talks like a duck it just might end up eventually being one.
Recommended further reading:
- Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer
- How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Ween
- The Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena, Bob Rickard & John Mitchell, eds.
I'd agree we are entering a new age of tomfoolery. We have already been warned about deep fake videos which I am already certain will shock and horrify some subset of the population as the American election year rumbles along clinking and clanking loudly. Your comment about journalism is absolutely valid. I've encountered some really good analysis of why the internet is so freaking bad at journalism and having largely replaced newspapers and for many television and radio (which themselves are hardly fantastic), it's a force of hurricane proportions. The reason is pretty much the same as why Yellow Journalism of another era was so unreliable, the capitalistic drive of "journalists". Headlines or Clicks or whatever will replace those screaming monsters are more important than facts, context, and detail. I'd never look to journalism for "truth". But we can do with fewer lies. (Sorry about the mini-rant, but this has been building.)
ReplyDeleteRant accepted! As a former student of journalism, I have learned to read news with a critical and discerning eye and it's downright alarming what passes for it today. I was taught to write objectively
ReplyDeletebut bias can be found today nearly anywhere in the seemingly harmless of ways, rendering it virtually subliminal.