The First Step to Informing Your Audience: Speak the Truth

Fairness and balance are two objectives that many want from their media. Not only does one get both sides of the story, but equal amounts of both sides. But is it really fair to be balanced? In science, the research gives one explanation, not ‘ifs.’ Earlier, I noted that science is not always right, so shouldn’t that point to describing both sides of the story? What is a science writer to do?

As Ricky Williams said, “To talk about balance, it’s easier to talk about what’s out of balance. And I think anytime that you have any disease, and disease meaning lack of ease, lack of flow… dis-ease. So any time there’s disease, you’re out of balance, whether it’s jealousy, anger, greed, anxiety, fear.” Some media outlets have goals as to what to show their audience. Certain news shows may be conservative while others are liberal. Depending on the source, other ‘baggage’ may affect what a news source may present to their audience. As Williams said, there are so many aspects to take, in this case, the news out of balance. But what is really fair?

From the words of Michael Pollan, “Fairness forces you – even when you’re writing a piece of highly critical of, say, genetically modified food, as I have done – to make sure you represent the other side as extensively and as accurately as you possibly can.” So, a journalist wants to represent both sides, but should a science writer?

I do not know.

I am in my first six months of being a science writer and certainly do not have many answers. According to a recent study, Fox News viewers know less about particular issues than those who do not watch the news. The motto of Fox News is ‘fair and balanced.’ Is this statement misleading the audience or does Fox News have an agenda to convey the news?

When I write science articles, I offer both sides of the story that come from science. I only report scientific reports, not advocate claims. I trust that my balance continues to be fair to science and that my readers are never misled.

The First Step to Balancing Science: Choose the Color

Science is a two-sided street. There is the true and the false, the ‘science’ and the ‘skeptic.’ The world is always black and white or sometimes gray. The question is: should science writing be black and white or gray?

As Elie Wiesel said, “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” When science writers join the gray, are they being silent in Wiesel’s quote? When they cover both sides of the story, are they encouraging skeptics to continue? Is it ethical to continue to support skeptics, the enemy of the scientist?

As Ayn Rand said, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” Science is not always right, but a science writer should only cover ‘true’ science. A skeptic does not have any scientific evidence to support their claims, only hope. As much as science writing should be balanced, the results of an experiment are not balanced. Science writers can only report the results.

The First Step to Trusting Science: View Scientists as ‘Normal’

How often do you picture a scientist resembling Albert Einstein? This crazy person with electrostatic hair speaking expeditiously is simple to picture. Even though I aspire to become a scientist, I still picture this crazy person who I secretly hope to be one day. However, at the same time, I am anxious about becoming “a scientist” due to this stereotype.

While I want to be that person that is so far off from the crowd, I want to be a person who makes a difference. However, this world is a bit stereotypical and might judge me as if I had my hair sticking straight up. The world pictures these crazy scientists when reading scientific articles. How can trust be afforded to those unable to be properly groomed?

Scientists are not ‘crazy’ people. I have personally met only two who may be titled remotely ‘crazy,’ others could say they had a screw loose. The reason society sees scientists as being crazy is due to basing opinions from stereotypical television shows and movies. Society views scientists working in a dark, basement lab day and night trying to discover the latest cure without time for personal gains. This stereotype can only be altered by modern scientists with human traits.

As Joss Whedon said, “I’ll take crazy over stupid any day.” Scientists will always be slightly crazy. Their work requires years of education and honestly that work can make one go insane. Society needs to realize that the best scientist may appear to be ridiculous, for example, Albert Einstein. However, these scientists can still be trusted. The stereotype of scientist may cause mistrust from the public especially among science writing. The science writer cannot do much to try to alter this opinion except continue to publish articles in the most trustworthy manner (and maybe publish a few ‘normal’ pictures).

The First Step to Telling the Truth: Ban Truthiness from Science Writing

truthiness (noun)
1. “truth that comes from the gut, not books” (Stephen Colbert)

    2. the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true

In my life, truthiness does not play a larger position in my decisions within the realm of science. I leave my diagnosis to the doctors and trust researchers. Researchers have more knowledge and avenues to collect knowledge than I do. However, I will read many scholarly articles based on the same topic if I do not agree with the initial findings even though I may not comprehend all of science. I may not use my gut to tell me the truthiness, but can trust my gut, in my opinion, if a doctor appears to have misdiagnosed me. I am the sick one, of course.

The question is: should a science writer base stories solely on the truth or is it acceptable/responsible/ethical to write something truthy? It is difficult to argue with scientific facts because of the time and research invested. As stated in the previous post, science is not always right. However, as a science writer, one cannot make up “science” based on one’s gut. If one wants to pass themselves off as a science writer, one must write about true science that is based on research in a laboratory with a researcher, not truthy science that is based on gut.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” If science writers decide to hide the truth from the public through using truthiness, advances cannot be made. No matter how horrible the truth, it is our job to report it. There will be times that we, as science writers, do not agree with the truth. The right thing to do may be to avoid writing the article. Now, that sounds just as misguided as presenting the wrong information, but there are other science writers. The world isn’t only looking to one for information. The thing is: if you don’t feel comfortable putting your name on the article, don’t do it.

According to Bo Bennett, “For every good reason there is to lie, there is a better reason to tell the truth.” And for every good reason there is to substitute truthiness, there is an even more compelling reason to tell the truth. When science writers begin to enter the realm of truthiness, readers become confused. Even though one science writer reports truthiness doesn’t mean that another won’t report the truth. Too many conflicting stories confuse readers, resulting in the loss of trust in science and science writers. That is and will never be our goal. Therefore, ban truthiness in our writing and report only the truth!