|
|
October 8th, 2007
|
|
Broad Generalizations Usually Wrong, Study Shows |
Vague, Noncommittal Statements May Also Be Somewhat Lacking In Usefulness
|
|
 |
|
Above: A typical over-generalization by a popular media source. |
Science - Sweeping generalizations commonly reported in the news media, on subjects ranging from science to health to politics, are usually misguided and can even be dangerous, a new study shows.
"We looked at thousands of stories in television, print and online media," says Dr. Steven J. Watson, president of the New England Mass Media Association (NEMMA), which conducted the study. "The most misleading pieces are the ones that make all-or-nothing statements like 'butter is bad for you.' The real story is never that simple, and articles that say such things can't possibly be true."
The opposite end of the scale also has its dangers. Ambiguous or wishy-washy statements, while not patently false like broad generalizations, can sometimes be misleading or unhelpful. The NEMMA study found that some news outlets often use "weasel words" to avoid controversy.
Articles like these may contain a grain of truth, the study claims, but it's often worth taking a closer look at them before accepting them as fact.
The news media may use simple but powerful tactics to lure you into trusting them. One of these tricks is to use authoritative-sounding quotations from someone with an impressive title. "Anytime you see a story that's based on the opinion of a so-called expert, but with no supporting evidence, don't believe it," Watson says. "I've been studying the media for a long time. Take my word for it, stories like that cannot be trusted."
In editorial pieces, which often address controversial issues, some authors resort to crude manipulative tactics. "The more emotional a topic is, the more prone editorials are to name-calling," Watson says. "Environmentalists are called tree-huggers. Evolutionary biologists are called monkey-men. Fortunately, only a fool would be persuaded by such childish rhetoric."
A more subtle tactic is to improperly use a correlation to prove causality. For example, some recent studies have shown a correlation between aggressive behavior in children and playing violent video games. But this doesn't prove that the video games caused the aggression. It may be that children with aggressive tendencies are more likely to choose violent video games.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mistaking correlation and causality can lead to impaired cognitive function and poor academic performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mistaking correlation and causality can have serious consequences. The NEMMA study concluded that making this type of error repeatedly can lead to impaired cognitive function and poor academic performance.
Another wily tactic is the "slippery slope" argument, in which a single event is described as the first in a cascade of inevitable and increasingly dire consequences.
"Watch out for that slippery slope argument: it's a gateway fallacy," Watson warns. "If you start falling for that one, next thing you know, you'll fall for another logical fallacy, and then another. You'll become completely gullible, and sooner or later you'll be ripped off by con artists, lose everything you own, and you'll be left to live a life of poverty and misery."
Perhaps the most underhanded tactic used by the media, Watson says, is to use guilt by association to discredit a group or an idea. "For example, people will attack the environmental movement by pointing to radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front," he explains. "The ELF may be a violent and dangerous organization, but that doesn't prove that their environmental concerns aren't valid."
"The Nazis used tactics like this all the time," he added.
Many experts welcomed the study, but some cautioned that the NEMMA's conclusions may be premature. "Don't listen to that Watson guy," said Dr. Robert J. Bernstein, president of the Southern California Skeptical Society. "He's an atheist. You can't believe a single thing he says."
|
|
|
