If you think legacy media reporting in general is bad, then you ought to try reading legacy media science reporting. Science reporting, more than any other it seems, has degenerated into simply regurgitating press releases. The “journalists” are generally woefully ignorant of basic scientific practice, let alone the rudiments of critical thinking, and are entirely captive to legacy media groupthink.
There are two iron rules I apply to science reporting. Firstly, when a news item claims “science proves…” or a “study says…”, proceed from the assumption that it doesn’t. In fact, this is a basic tenet of science and critical thinking in general. This is expressed in various ways, from the Royal Society’s Nullius in verba (“Take no-one’s word for it”), the “null hypothesis” (there is no effect or relationship as is claimed), or the logical and legal principle of the burden of proof.
All of which adds up to a default position of scepticism.
The second rule is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Both of these rules apply in spades to so-called “social science”, which almost invariably makes the most extraordinary, sweeping claims on the basis of the flimsiest evidence, leavened with the dodgiest of methods. Most often, “social science” seems to be entirely about pandering to the prejudices of the researcher – not to mention the journalists who “report” it.
Case in point:
As if we needed more reason to love JK Rowling, a couple of recent studies have shown that reading Harry Potter can make children better people.
This is an extraordinary claim, yet it is reported without question. Mostly, as the subsequent comments show, the story is really about confirmation bias run wild.
[Teacher-librarian Megan Daley says] “We live in an age where issues such as toxic masculinity, racism, sexism and sexual discrimination are constantly hitting the headlines of major papers and media”.
essentialkids.com.au/education/school/primary-school/science-proves-reading-harry-potter-makes-children-kinder
I’ll leave the reader to make what they will of Ms Daley’s likely prejudices. Instead, let’s take a look at the actual study. Unfortunately, it’s behind the Great Academic Paywall, to which I no longer have a set of keys, but there are some telling clues in even the most gushing legacy media story.
The researchers conducted several studies […]the first featured 34 Italian fifth graders, who began by filling out a questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward immigrants.
For six weeks, they met weekly with a researcher in groups of five or six to discuss selected passages from the Harry Potter books. Half of the kids read, and talked about, sections that dealt directly with prejudice; the others focused on sections that discussed unrelated topics.
Two things leap out, here: firstly, the focus on “immigrants” (which is in fact legacy media-speak for the millions of illegal immigrants who’ve flooded into Italy over the last few years. It is perfectly feasible to have either positive or negative attitudes to illegal immigration without that making someone either a “good” or “bad” person. It speaks volumes about the prejudices of the researchers that they use simple differences of opinion to define one as “good” or “bad”.
Secondly: they met weekly with a researcher in groups of five or six to discuss selected passages. Call me a cynic, but that says to me that the subjects were being coached.
Even with all that, the research did not show the actual effect claimed.
Those who read and discussed Potter passages about prejudices showed “improved attitudes towards immigrants.” The researchers caution, however, that this welcome reaction only occurred among those who identified with the title character.
psmag.com/social-justice/harry-potter-battle-bigotry
Again, note the “improved attitudes” and “welcome reaction”: more evidence of the researchers’ and reporters’ personal prejudices colouring the alleged result. More important, though, is that the effect only occurred among those who identified with the title character. This suggests strongly that there’s a lot more to this: most likely that impressionable adolescents are easily led.
This study seems more likely to hint at the particular susceptibility of young people to propaganda and manipulation by unscrupulous adults. But that’s not something the legacy media would much like to talk about, I suspect.
