Good video from Regulator Watch

[Kent C]

I don't think he really lets media off the hook, but he could probably emphasize his point better. He said that the media like "horror stories", and that's true, because fear sells content. Media companies, like any other company, care about profits and profits are driven by advertising dollars. The more attention your content gets, the more you can charge for advertising space / time.

Yes, he acknowledges that the media likes 'horror stories' but immediate follows up with "they get this information from scientists" and as I said above - that's not the only thing that is reported and they selectively edit in all the former black PR, and edit out any of the pro-vaping studies. (noted exceptions) but in general - that's what we've seen from most of the media - not JUST the science, but their own subjective editing.

 

[Jman8]

Also the media bias shows up in where stories are positioned. Science has nothing to do with that. If it is counter to editorial staff's take on things, it'll be buried somewhere. But if it's right up their alley, it'll be front and center. And if it is later corrected (via science) and goes against editorial staff's POV, it'll for sure be buried or not even picked up. Plus, scientists aren't, for the most part, speaking in headlines, while publications rely heavily on that as way to draw an audience in. And just the way a story/article is worded in it's heading demonstrates bias. Here in Media section we see it pretty much all the time.

I think if there were truly no such thing as media bias, we wouldn't see scientific types offer up their own biases as much. But because there is a very obvious bias, I see scientific types doing it more and more and seemingly the general audience takes it as 'must be true if scientist is saying it.'

I'm so glad that philosophy trumps science.

 

[BuGlen]

Yes, he acknowledges that the media likes 'horror stories' but immediate follows up with "they get this information from scientists" and as I said above - that's not the only thing that is reported and they selectively edit in all the former black PR, and edit out any of the pro-vaping studies. (noted exceptions) but in general - that's what we've seen from most of the media - not JUST the science, but their own subjective editing.

I don't disagree with your point at all, and the media has been putting a spin on content for as long as I can remember (to some extent), although it's gotten much worse in the last 3 decades. Where we used to have actual news and sensationalist teasers to get you to tune in, we now pretty much only have tabloid news outlets and op-ed pieces sprinkled with some facts for flavor. It's up to the consumer to discern the facts from the spin and fear mongering designed to get people to view/watch their content.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: If you look at it from a free-market / profit-driven perspective, the only way to get them to fix the product (spun content) is for the majority of the population to stop consuming their product. It seems to me that these days, the most popular media companies are the ones producing the most outrageous spun content, so I don't know how likely it is that the market will change any time soon.

 

[Kent C]

It's up to the consumer to discern the facts from the spin and fear mongering designed to get people to view/watch their content.

Totally agree with your post. Esp. the point above. Problem is, it's self-perpetuating. And the fact that education is lacking - that doesn't help either and enables it to occur. Being cool, "in", etc. has a lot more value than being educated, logical, objective. Having a job tends to enforce the latter. Not having to have a job encourages the former.

It does deflect on my point re: Dr. F's comments though :- ) Which I still stand by.