Reading this newsletter aloud in a rural Oklahoma burger joint started out okay, then my husband told me to quiet down :) But really, thank you for highlighting our need to scrutinize ALL media, whether we agree with the political lean or not. Certain news outlets (ahem, Fox) may have adopted their interpretations from the school of trumpism (yes, lowercase), wherein you make a quick judgment, stand belligerently by your statements, and spew maga rhetoric. Alas, the source of and all implications really matter.
Thanks for your comment, Robyn! Scholars may consider it old news that scientific findings (e.g., statistical data) aren't objective, but lay people don't necessarily think that way. When news outlets position their reports as bridges between science and public, they need to carefully contextualize the stats they present if they really intend these "bridges" to serve the public interest. As you noted, some outlets don't do that well. In my opinion, how well they do it is a matter of degree. Organizations like the New York Times, for example, do make an effort to contextualize statistics, describe methodologies, call out uncertainties, and present competing interpretations.
In the next few weeks I will definitely create a newsletter on the story you identified. Thanks for the suggestion!
Reading this newsletter aloud in a rural Oklahoma burger joint started out okay, then my husband told me to quiet down :) But really, thank you for highlighting our need to scrutinize ALL media, whether we agree with the political lean or not. Certain news outlets (ahem, Fox) may have adopted their interpretations from the school of trumpism (yes, lowercase), wherein you make a quick judgment, stand belligerently by your statements, and spew maga rhetoric. Alas, the source of and all implications really matter.
Request for a newsletter in the near future: https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-law-will-require-public-colleges-to-survey-for-intellectual-freedom-and-viewpoint-diversity?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_2503056_nl_Academe-Today_date_20210624&cid=at&source=&sourceId=&cid2=gen_login_refresh
Thanks for your comment, Robyn! Scholars may consider it old news that scientific findings (e.g., statistical data) aren't objective, but lay people don't necessarily think that way. When news outlets position their reports as bridges between science and public, they need to carefully contextualize the stats they present if they really intend these "bridges" to serve the public interest. As you noted, some outlets don't do that well. In my opinion, how well they do it is a matter of degree. Organizations like the New York Times, for example, do make an effort to contextualize statistics, describe methodologies, call out uncertainties, and present competing interpretations.
In the next few weeks I will definitely create a newsletter on the story you identified. Thanks for the suggestion!