A misinformed society
In today’s fast-paced world, people no longer have the time to sit down and simply read the ‘newspaper’ (What? News written on paper? It’s like SOOO 2009…). As college students, we are taught not to believe everything we read, to explore where information comes from, and to think critically about studies and their results. On the rare occasions that I actually read The Gazzette or (even more likely) the Journal Metro, I skip all the articles that start by “researchers from blabla university found that blablabla and blablabla” because it is a waste of my time. Why? Because most of the studies that are picked up by the media are new. They claim to have new information about how eating more chocolate will decrease rates of violence; how drinking more coffee will make you more likeable; and how red wine helps you to tan during the summer. My choice of topics is based on the fact that if a study discusses any of these 3 headings, it will most likely get picked up by local newspapers. However, the problem with reading these (and initially, with their publication in the world of communications) is that the media will make a big deal about the new research, but we will never see any follow-ups published. This means that if subsequent studies prove that the correlation between two variables is not as strong as it was initially suggested; or was mediated by other factors; or was simply not significant, then the likelihood of those studies reaching the general public’s attention is close to zero. This breakage in the chain of information leads to the most misinformed generations that have probably ever existed. You might think, but who cares? It does not really matter whether some of the people that read the article decide to eat more or less chocolate, right? But what if the study is not about chocolate, but about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism? Does it ring a bell? The UK Department of Health pointed to the lack of evidence in the controversial study and the media widely reported and sustained the Department’s claims. However, in 2002, between 20% and 25% of the public still believed that such a link existed and 39% to 53% continued to think that there was equal evidence to support both sides of this debate (Hargreavs, Lewis, & Speers, 2003). This means that a considerable chunk of parents would consider not vaccinating their kids. Talk about a bit of a pickle huh?
Hargreaves I., Lewis J., Speers T. (2003). Towards a better map: Science, the public and the media. London, England: Economic and Social Research Council.
Enjoy!
student ID: 260528661
