The issue of Kiernan’s findings about press increasing academic citations has been revisited in discussion.

Does press coverage of journal articles really matter?

In 2005, Pinholster charted story counts against citations of journal articles covered by National Public Radio, The New York Times, and ABC-TV. The New York Times had the highest story count, doubling citations. For two studies covered in all three media, citations had a 10-fold increase. Medical subjects get the biggest press pickup and the most citations. Eysenbach…compared 1280 non-open-access with 212 open-access articles. The latter were twice as likely to be cited. Pinholster concluded that New York Times placement remains prestigious, but television and Internet ties are increasingly productive.

Kiernan: Diffusion of News about Research.

Analysis of media coverage of articles published in four elite scholarly journals, and the frequency of subsequent citation of those journal articles by other scholars, found evidence of news diffusion of the research to scientists.

“Richard, the point is that quoting an effect in relative terms is a good way of quantifying the effectiveness of an intervention in comparison with other interventions (or with doing nothing)”

Not true. Imagine a study of 100 people, 50 given treatment, 50 untreated, where 1 person on the treated side dies during the study period of 1 year, and 2 people die on the untreated side. Anyone familiar with the most basic tenants of proper scientific method could tell you that the study was meaningless. The sample was too small, the study period too short. Quality of life is not assessed. However, relative statistics allows us to report that New Miracle Cure X cut the death rate in half. A good scientist may use relative numbers in a brief summary or an abstract but would never neglect to include the real numbers in the actual paper. Real numbers aren’t just about interpreting results; they are also, and in my opinion much more importantly, about interpreting the validity of the research. That is why so many people don’t want them published.

The authors concluded that “High-publicised illnesses may affect both consumer and provider behaviour. Although they present opportunities to improve public health, they also have the potential to adversely impact the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of service delivery.

Is it as simple as wishing for ‘better science journalists’? We should be so lucky…”

which is particular poison when coupled with the DM’s censorship of dissenting views that might inform them of the results of such scrutiny.

My only point was that to use the word “infect” – even when used very casually – instead of (say) “influence” is to use hysterical language far removed from any serious discussion and far removed from the type of careful journalism that Ben hopes for himself and others.

With regard to your point about the Daily Mail, I think Dr Goldacre’s main gripe is that with that particular newspaper is its consistent disregard for checking facts, its inability to accurately present scientific reports or summaries, its hysterical delight in proclaiming the next epidemic and the lack of duty is exhibits in delivering such news to its readers. However, you can find within Dr Goldacre’s articles criticisms of scientific journalism that also cite poor standards within the Guardian.

I believe his viewpoint is that the Daily Mail is the worst proponent of such reporting whilst claiming to wear the clothes of a quality newspaper when it clearly makes no effort to attain even the basic level of such an ideal.

To address the wider discussion of journalistic standards I would level that the public (or educational standards) are guilty of failing to redress the balance of poor journalism. I suggest that this is due to readers themselves being unable to scrutinise articles with an objective, critical mind. One does not need a science degree in order to determine if the facts of a case appear to add up and that is where I think readers fail themselves.

I have the feeling that many simply wish to be spoon fed rather than have to think for themselves and hold science as a boring subject which only geeks and brainiacs can hope to understand. What a poor state of affairs.

So Gary Schwitzer’s report found that articles routinely gave quantitative information in relative terms, rather than absolute terms.

But then I note that Ben makes the same error. He refers to a study into the effect that press coverage of Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer had on mammogram bookings. But all the figures he quotes are relative changes: “bookings rose by 40%…”.

ooh i’m always keen to get called out on something like this.

i think it would be a very fair criticism if we were talking about a risk or benefit issue where absolute figures are relevant to the readers health behaviour or reading interest, but the fact that breast cancer screening bookings “rose by 40%” is only interesting for the fact of a change related to media coverage, i’d say, while the absolute figures on breast cancer screening bookings per week are not very interesting or relevant themselves. all refs were above and a reader could have checked (although no weblinks as i was away from computer for a few days, also worth saying i do send these to the guardian too, usually, although they don’t use them). but yes, good call in some respects, at least a keepontoes one, and if anyone is interested the figures are: 10,513 screening bookings per week went up to 14,716 per week.

raygirvan: Yes, I agree, you certainly can say pretty much anything on the Guardian comment boards as demonstrated by the preponderance of 9/11 “truth-seekers”.

Godwin’s law? What’s that?

Yep. However, there is something particularly objectionable about the DM. It’s not so much what it believes (though its repetitive “Asylum seekers laughed at dying Diana as house prices plummeted” line is pretty tedious) as, in contrast the Guardian, the authoritarian guarding of those beliefs. It has a cowardly resistance to open discussion, which is anathema to anyone from a science background (or anyone who doesn’t what to be told what to think without right of reply).

Compare, for instance, the Guardian forums, where you can say pretty much what you like, to the DM’s discussion threads, that are assiduously censored to remove comments on factual errors and expression of differing viewpoints.

Or, for instance, can you find a DM equivalent of the Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications with its policy “to correct significant errors as soon as possible”?

Your attention is further drawn to the header, in which Ben freely aknowleges his prejudices, and the opening sentence in which he says “The best thing about this job is you have an excuse to read the Daily Mail every day”.

“Is reading the DM to be considered the manifestation of a disease? [...] Is reading only Polly Toynbee or nodding in agreement with every Guardian Leader a sign of health?

In scientific terms (as I’m sure you are aware) you should subject every theory to as much scrutiny from as many different angles as is possible. And those who refuse to examine their pet theories cannot be called good scientists.”

The Daily Mail to the Guardian.. the whole gamut of opinion, from A to B

Didn’t really mean to say that nothing should be done. But I am suggesting that the problem is maybe a little more deep-rooted than could be solved by journos doing their jobs better (but in a less interesting way. therefore probably less successfully). Intervention to help people understand the ludicrousness of certain ways of talking about science would probably need to come in the form of a massively reformed education system. Journalists are selling a product: to blame them and not the state for an increasingly ill-informed and logic-resistant public feels a bit too “shoot the messenger.”

Is reading the DM to be considered the manifestation of a disease? You seem to believe that keeping away from it will keep you pure and healthy. Is reading only Polly Toynbee or nodding in agreement with every Guardian Leader a sign of health?

In scientific terms (as I’m sure you are aware) you should subject every theory to as much scrutiny from as many different angles as is possible. And those who refuse to examine their pet theories cannot be called good scientists. The same is true of nonscientific opinions. The Daily Mailers are not infected, Ben, they just hold different opinions to you.

I’m sure you are aware, Ben, that Guardianistas can be every bit as hysterical and self righteous when they want to be – as you yourself prove in the first para of this article.

But then I note that Ben makes the same error. He refers to a study into the effect that press coverage of Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer had on mammogram bookings. But all the figures he quotes are relative changes: “bookings rose by 40%…”.

Was that a case of spot the deliberate error?

At what point then does something become propaganda? Is propaganda even possible if the choice between stories/ideas is solely in the hands of the reader?

Jody