False Reporting in the Science Press

Every once in a while, a Conservative radio talk show host will compile sound clips where newscasters and pundits are using the same key words on the same story. I'm not going into political stuff here, this is just a handy example: In 2007, George W. Bush was criticized for needing gravitas, a word that doesn't exactly appear in common speech, and Rush Limbaugh showed how it was suddenly popular on that one topic. This seems to be the way things are done — including the evolutionary propaganda media.

Science media reporting gives us some wild stories, often reporting in lockstep. The stuff seems real, but speculations and guesses are passed off as actual scientific research — and people believe this stuff.
Generated at Fodey.com. This could lead to future fun.
We have enough problems when scientists make pronouncements of their opinions as if they had done rigorous research, came to valid conclusions, and can support their claims, but were only giving opinions instead. It gets worse when the biased owlhoots who are looking for sensational stories get mighty rambunctious with their stories, all the while singing in harmony. The whole thing turns into a goat rodeo.

Then, people who want to believe in enzyme-to-editor evolution will believe this stuff and have their unfounded faith strengthened. People need to challenge them — Cindy Lou illustrates the "where does it say that?" approach. This makes it more difficult to get through to them that God created the world recently, and we are accountable to him.
Science reporting is a global racket that uncritically propagates nonsense with the imprimatur of science.

Many in academia are concerned about unscientific ideas that go viral in social media. Perhaps they should set a better example themselves. Pure speculations that are demonstrably unempirical are published daily by Big Science and Big Media, with no rebuttals or caveats.

Here’s how it works: a “scientist” or “researcher” gets a wacky idea that cannot be proved. Because they wear the honorable label of “scientist,” their opinions have presumptive authority. Their institutions (universities or labs), eager to promote what a great job their staff scientists are doing, enjoy opportunities to highlight their work. Each institution has a public relations department that is always looking for new promotional material. Their expertise is in watering down the “findings” for a lay audience, gathering quotes as needed, adding a catchy headline and some artwork or photos. The PR office then puts the feed out until the journal paper is about to arrive, labeling it “embargoed” for the Big Media reporters until the Big Day. This gives reporters in Big Media time to tweak the press release with their own headline and wording. When the Big Day arrives, the embargo is lifted, and all the Big Media reporters come out with the same “news” almost simultaneously, using the same artwork, but with their own particular wording and headlines. Other Small Media reporters quickly copy the story uncritically, and it goes viral.
To read the rest, click on "The Science Media Racket".