Reporters, news sources, and scientific intervention: the New Madrid earthquake prediction

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conrad Smith

Five major newspapers in the United States published only eight stories about a scientifically legitimate prediction of a 1989 earthquake that caused six billion dollars' damage. The same newspapers published 68 stories about an unscientific prediction of a 1990 earthquake that did not occur. This paper attempts to explain why the unscientific prediction received more scrutiny by examining the journalistic practices that determine what is newsworthy and who is interviewed. The paper also analyses the effectiveness of an organized effort by the scientific community to intervene in the journalistic process.

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilee Long ◽  
Jocelyn Steinke

Several media effects perspectives suggest that televised images can influence children's perceptions of science and scientists. This study analysed images of science and scientists in four children's educational science programmes. The images of science as truth, as fun, and as a part of everyday life, as well as the image that science is for everyone, were quite evident. Little evidence was found for the image of science as magical or mysterious. Support for the images of science as dangerous and science as a solution to problems was mixed. Images of scientists as omniscient and elite were quite prevalent; there was no evidence for the image of scientists as evil or violent. Some support was found for the image of scientists as eccentric and antisocial. Overall, the images were more constructive than detrimental. Predictions about the effect these images could have on children and on the scientific community are given.


2021 ◽  
pp. 193124312110604
Author(s):  
A.J. Bauer ◽  
Anthony Nadler ◽  
Jacob L. Nelson

Fox News is one of the most popular news sources in the United States. Yet, there are those who reject the idea that Fox should be considered a news source in the first place, claiming it should be considered something more akin to propaganda. This article uses the ambiguity surrounding Fox News’ classification as an opportunity to explore how news sources get defined and categorized within journalism research and practice. It discusses three approaches that can be utilized to understand and categorize partisan media—producer-focused, audience-focused, and critical/normative. It explores the benefits and limitations of these perspectives and the need for scholarly inquiry that transverses and synthesizes them. We argue that an increasingly variegated news landscape calls for scholars to develop a richer vocabulary for distinguishing key features of partisan news outlets and greater reflexivity in research design that acknowledges the challenges inherent in translating meaning and values between producers, audiences, and scholars.


2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 1181-1184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsey Chandler Ruppersburg ◽  
Amanda L. York

Every scientist in the United States likely has a story of how the federal funding crisis for biomedical research has affected him or her personally. The sharing of these powerful anecdotes will enable policy makers to fully grasp the extent to which the decline in federal funding has negatively affected the scientific community. However, many scientists do not know where to begin or are uncertain that their advocacy efforts will have an impact. In an effort to encourage more scientists to become involved in science advocacy, we describe how to form and maintain a student science advocacy group.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0252670
Author(s):  
Madeleine Reinhardt ◽  
Matthew B. Findley ◽  
Renee A. Countryman

In March of 2020, the United States was confronted with a major public health crisis caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to identify what factors influence adherence to recently implemented public health measures such as mask-wearing and social distancing, trust of scientific organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) on information pertaining to the pandemic, and level of perceived risk. Data were collected from June 30, 2020 to July 22, 2020 on 951 adult residents of the United States using an online survey through Microsoft Forms. Multiple linear regression was used to identify the strongest predictors for compliance to pandemic-related health measures, trust in the scientific community, and perceived risk. Results showed that the strongest predictor of all variables of interest was degree of policy liberalism. Additionally, participants who consumed more conservative news media conformed less to the pandemic health guidelines and had less trust in the scientific community. Degree of policy liberalism was found to have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between gender and conformity to pandemic-related health behaviors. These findings have concerning implications that factors like degree of policy liberalism and source of news are more influential in predicting adherence to life-saving health measures than established risk factors like pre-existing health conditions.


Societies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Robert B. Michael ◽  
Mevagh Sanson

People have access to more news from more sources than ever before. At the same time, they increasingly distrust traditional media and are exposed to more misinformation. To help people better distinguish real news from “fake news,” we must first understand how they judge whether news is real or fake. One possibility is that people adopt a relatively effortful, analytic approach, judging news based on its content. However, another possibility—consistent with psychological research—is that people adopt a relatively effortless, heuristic approach, drawing on cues outside of news content. One such cue is where the news comes from: its source. Beliefs about news sources depend on people’s political affiliation, with U.S. liberals tending to trust sources that conservatives distrust, and vice versa. Therefore, if people take this heuristic approach, then judgments of news from different sources should depend on political affiliation and lead to a confirmation bias of pre-existing beliefs. Similarly, political affiliation could affect the likelihood that people mistake real news for fake news. We tested these ideas in two sets of experiments. In the first set, we asked University of Louisiana at Lafayette undergraduates (Experiment 1a n = 376) and Mechanical Turk workers in the United States (Experiment 1a n = 205; Experiment 1b n = 201) to rate how “real” versus “fake” a series of unfamiliar news headlines were. We attributed each headline to one of several news sources of varying political slant. As predicted, we found that source information influenced people’s ratings in line with their own political affiliation, although this influence was relatively weak. In the second set, we asked Mechanical Turk workers in the United States (Experiment 2a n = 300; Experiment 2b n = 303) and University of Louisiana at Lafayette undergraduates (Experiment 2b n = 182) to watch a highly publicized “fake news” video involving doctored footage of a journalist. We found that people’s political affiliation influenced their beliefs about the event, but the doctored footage itself had only a trivial influence. Taken together, these results suggest that adults across a range of ages rely on information other than news content—such as how they feel about its source—when judging whether news is real or fake. Moreover, our findings help explain how people experiencing the same news content can arrive at vastly different conclusions. Finally, efforts aimed at educating the public in combatting fake news need to consider how political affiliation affects the psychological processes involved in forming beliefs about the news.


1962 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Carder

The Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., with assistance from the scientific community, has embarked on a program to produce 1 : 1 000000 scale charts of the Moon. This work is an Air Force cartographic contribution to the United States Space Program.


2019 ◽  
pp. 25-53
Author(s):  
Elaine Howard Ecklund ◽  
David R. Johnson ◽  
Brandon Vaidyanathan ◽  
Kirstin R. W. Matthews ◽  
Steven W. Lewis ◽  
...  

US scientists believe that the US religious public is generally antiscience. However the views of religious Americans are much more nuanced and religious Americans are often more open to science and scientific issues than scientists would believe. Nevertheless, scientists’ perceptions of the religious public in the United States shape their views of religion and science. Scientists who are religious generally keep their science and their faith separate. Religious scientists feel they are at risk of discrimination within the scientific community, because of existing stereotypes about religious people. Religious scientists are often influenced by their faith when choosing scientific work that they think will have a beneficial impact on society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document