By Hussain Ather
When facts are under fire, science communication should value truth and evidence. That was the message of a panel of at Professional Development Day 2019.
Assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University John Cook emphasized the mental models people build as they process information.
People prefer models that are complete and less accurate than those that are incomplete and more accurate. As a result, science has a tough uphill battle. Cook suggested replacing myths with memorable and compelling facts, warning people before mentioning myths, and explaining techniques by which a myth may distort facts.
It’s also useful to point out the flaws in people’s logic. For example, if someone says something like “What happened to global warming?” in response to cold weather, Cook may respond with “What happened to the sun?” during the darkness of nighttime.
When people are confronted with two contradicting pieces of information, they choose to believe in neither, as though the two pieces of information “cancel out.” This is why he suggests suggests warning readers before presenting them with a myth or other type of false information. This means providing frameworks for explaining invalid reasoning such as through fake experts, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories.
Journalists value transparency, said Laura Helmuth, health, science and environment editor of the Washington Post. Helmuth mentioned President Donald Trump’s tweets on fake news from media publications.
The Washington Post has used this as an opportunity to have journalists explain their sources and reasoning to be more transparent in response. They also clarify which writing represents a point of view or personal experience.
Helmuth argues that giving simple, clear brief rebuttals that emphasize facts, avoid repeating myths, and replace myths with true information can lead to fighting the issues of alternative facts. Helmuth used the example of writer Christie Aschwanden’s article “Athletes, Stop Taking Supplements” as an effective response to false information of dietary supplements that purport to benefit the body.
Rebecca Hersher, science reporter for NPR, suggested surprising readers with true, declarative headlines that draw the reader in while remaining truthful to the content of the article.
It’s a difficult balance to pull in readers while refraining from making misleading statements. She noted that in many cases people only read the headline and the search engine optimization keywords of the article. so this wording is extremely important.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.