I went to a movie screening that changed the way I thought about the role of science, the media, and mainstream perception on issues. It featured "Merchants of Doubt", a documentary based on the eye-opening book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It details the story of how a group of scientists helped shape public opinion by supporting campaigns that skewed information to fit certain corporations agendas. These scientists used their credibility to change opinions on issues such as tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and other prevalent issues of concern. Brandeis hosted a screening and a Q&A with one of the authors, Naomi Oreskes, and these are three takeaways I got from the session:
1) The public's gullibility can be used for specific corporate agendas.
Certain corporations will pay fake scientists to give their arguments a sense of credibility on the media. They will work for organizations with names that sound like they are promoting the most ethical argument when in actuality, many of the organizations are covers for companies. These companies do not want people to stop investing in their product because of potential safety issues. They will pay people to go on TV or the radio to make their products seem safe when they are not.
2. A major issue today is that there is a lack of a bridge between scientists' work and the public.
A point that Oreskes made in the Q&A session was that scientists are constantly publishing studies. These studies will often use jargon that makes it difficult for the average person to understand. Insightful studies will often not make their way into the world because there are limited platforms that summarize the findings in a comprehensible manner that a non-scientist could read. In order for people to become aware of issues, there needs to be a means to communicate the facts from the original source to the mainstream audience.
3. Is it the journalists' job to convey the accurate scientific information?
Many people believe that it is not the job of the journalist to report on the research itself. In Walter Lippmann's book, "Public Opinion", he argues that the average journalist is not properly trained to write about scholars' ideas. Even though Lippmann published his book in 1922, part of the idea still resonates with society today. High-quality news needs to come from people who understand their collected data. If journalists want to accurately convey the implications of a scientific study, they need to have some education in the discipline. The same issue would arise if one were to make the argument that it is the scientists' job to get their information to the populace. Many scientists are not armed with the tools to feed their studies to the public, and they have to focus on their research first. The news in the mainstream media needs to be published by those capable of using their knowledge of a specific discipline and simplifying it to reach a wider audience. Without this, society will never know the scientific facts needed to form an accurate opinion on an issue.
