It’s an unfortunate fact that we are drawn to headlines that play on our fears – for example, that we’ll all die from some horrible disease or be vaporized by an asteroid impact. The media love to scare us with terrifying stories – luckily, they are often total junk.
Stories that appear to be based on scientific evidence are often neither challenged nor properly investigated. For example, in 2005, newspapers reported that the “super bug” MRSA had been detected in various UK hospitals. Microbiologists from the hospitals, however, found no such bacterium.
In fact, the “expert” that had peddled the story was discovered to have little knowledge of microbiology, and even sold anti-MRSA products from his garden shed. In spite of this lack of credibility, the media were happy to report and promote his views.
One reason why non-experts often get exposure is that the media prefers people with media prowess, even if they aren’t best scientists, which causes false stories to be spread.
For example, British newspapers reported for nearly a decade on research that linked a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism in children, largely because of a single anecdotal paper led by the surgeon Andrew Wakefield.
All the large-scale, scientifically rigorous trials showed that MMR was safe. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the academics weren’t very good at communicating with the media.
Instead of reporting actual science, the newspapers employed generalists, or non-scientists, to write stories to accompany a crusade of emotional parents and patients battling against the political and corporate establishment.
In addition to the nonexistent link between the MMR vaccine and autism, Wakefield also had conflicts of interest and consequently suppressed data that didn’t fit his theory. Of course, the media couldn’t be bothered to look into this; as a result of their sloppy reporting, fewer people got vaccinated for MMR, and the cases of measles, mumps and rubella shot up.