Anti-X
“Anti” sounds scientific. But it’s also used to breed false controversy
Anti-aging. Anti-vaxxers. Anti-GMO. Why are we always upping the “anti” and acting like its science? How can we hold the perpetrators of this — including our favorite media outlets and content creators — accountable?
Anti-climate-change may be the most classic example.
Is climate change happening, and is it most likely the result of human activities? Yes. There is a very clear consensus on this from the scientists who make understanding the climate their life’s work.
Is there still anti-climate-change messaging in advertising and mainstream media? Somehow, yes.
According to a 2017 Gallup poll, just 71% of Americans said that this scientific consensus exists. An even smaller percentage of the public — only 68% — believes climate change is caused by human activities. And, despite unparalleled global heat waves, never-before-seen hurricanes, and carnivorous wildfires, just 62% of the public believes we’re already experiencing the effects of climate change.
The most obvious explanation for this widespread misinformation is money. And a lot of it. In addition to the significant contributions of ExxonMobil and the Koch Affiliated Foundations to climate change denial organizations, some 75% of donations to these groups — that’s nearly 558 million dollars, mind you — is “dark money”. It can’t be traced.
But there’s a confounding aspect that doesn’t cost donors a cent: the media. In an attempt to circumvent accusations of “bias,” it has been the norm for media organizations to lend equal weight to climate scientists and climate-change deniers in segments about climate change. This is tantamount to interviewing a drug dealer and a public health official about the opioid crisis and acting like they have the same stakes and experience.
Even a seemingly harmless label like “anti-aging” is dangerous when it’s passed-off by the media as science. That anti-aging skin cream you apply religiously each night because it’s “clinically proven” or “dermatologist-recommended”? Those terms are as meaningless as “natural” foods. No one regulates their use by advertisers, so there’s no standard or burden of proof to become “clinically proven” effective. Mainstream and even supposedly independent publications don’t do nearly enough to challenge the ridiculous claims of anti-aging companies, and even worse, often showcase these products with indulgent — and commonly unsponsored—lifestyle features.
Marketers latch onto and feed public denial of basic scientific truths. Among the people who devote their lives to education and research on these topics, there is no debate: we age, climate change is manmade and immediate, vaccines do not cause autism, GMOs are safe. But because so much of the media we consume is paid for by one interest group or another, advertisers can build a sense of controversy where, if you look at the facts, there is none.
If we can’t hold advertisers accountable, we need to, at the very least, hold the “objective” media — your favorite columnists, newscasters, and public radio stations — to a reasonable and scientific standard.
How?
We need to do our research. Trust the scientists who have dedicated their lives to learning about the world, rather than the marketers, investors, and politicians who get paid off of our beliefs.
And we need to be vocal. Call out the bias in media that presents false controversies. Put those Twitter fingers to use, write your editors, and if you can, hit the streets. Ask people—are you anti-X, or are you just anti-science?
You can follow Powerhouse on Twitter: @NewsPowerhouse. For more science-based reporting — delivered straight to your inbox every Monday morning — subscribe to Powerhouse:eepurl.com/dA83pr
