Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public

From this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141212150231.htm
It’s practically an abstract, so details are really vague, but it may be interesting to dive into the details.

Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
What should happen to them? Should they be punished for not being skeptical or better informed? Lois
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
This is an old and frustrating problem in medicine too. the media always hypes every medical story in their promos to get people to tune in and even if they tone things down in the actual story all anyone ever remembers is the scary headline To cite a recent example a local news program proclaimed "THE FLU SHOT YOU GOT IS PROBABLY USELESS". When you tuned in at 6pm to hear the story they toned it down some but still got the facts wrong. The feedback I get form my patients is that they heard this years flu shot doesn't work which is completely false. So much for informing the public
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
This is an old and frustrating problem in medicine too. the media always hypes every medical story in their promos to get people to tune in and even if they tone things down in the actual story all anyone ever remembers is the scary headline To cite a recent example a local news program proclaimed "THE FLU SHOT YOU GOT IS PROBABLY USELESS". When you tuned in at 6pm to hear the story they toned it down some but still got the facts wrong. The feedback I get form my patients is that they heard this years flu shot doesn't work which is completely false. So much for informing the public Everyone should consider that most "news" in newspapers, magazines, and nearly all popular media, is reported the way the neighborhood gossips do it. Drama, sensationalism and fear-mongering are the the motivating influences. It's too bad the public is not aware of this. Most of the public assumes that if something is in print nor goes over the airwaves that it must be true. And if an article appears or a sensible person is interviewed on the airwaves saying the reports are not true or are partially wrong, most of the public will scoff at it and some will call it a conspiracy by the government or big pharma or other corporations. They seem to know what skepticism is, but it's nearly always misplaced. They're always barking up the wrong tree. You just can't win! Lois
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
What should happen to them? Should they be punished for not being skeptical or better informed? Lois Well, sadly, they sure will be getting punished for their apathy as their/our cozy lives begin to unravel due to the consequence of our disregard and idiotically misplaced priorities. But, they'll be too dumb to recognize it, and simply blame the first perceived enemy they see. Such an idiotic circus doing down. I become more astounded with the passing of every eventful month. :down: Tragically, they'll wind up taking everyone else down with them.
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
What should happen to them? Should they be punished for not being skeptical or better informed? Lois How about just making it clear to them that anyone who overgeneralizes the findings of a particular study, is a dumbass?
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
What should happen to them? Should they be punished for not being skeptical or better informed? Lois How about just making it clear to them that anyone who overgeneralizes the findings of a particular study, is a dumbass? That's been done millions of times. They aren't listening or they revel in being dumbasses. They take the appellation as a compliment. Lois
Current practices in reporting on behavioural genetics can mislead the public Date: December 12, 2014 Source: Université de Montréal Summary: “Media reports about behavioural genetics unintentionally induce unfounded beliefs, therefore going against the educational purpose of scientific reporting," writes a researcher following his study of 1,500 Americans. Public misunderstanding is not the only thing to blame for this misinterpretation. “Generally, science reporters’ first goal is to inform the public about scientific developments. However, this practice is not disinterested; some news is purposely written in a manner intended to catch the public’s attention with startling results in order to increase or to maintain market shares," the researcher explained.
So what else is new. And why does the silly public, and their expectations, always get off scott free?
What should happen to them? Should they be punished for not being skeptical or better informed? Lois How about just making it clear to them that anyone who overgeneralizes the findings of a particular study, is a dumbass? That's been done millions of times. They aren't listening or they revel in being dumbasses. They take the appellation as a compliment. Lois In that case we could make it clear to any who repeatedly overgeneralize the findings of a particular study, are either ignorant dumbasses. or dumbasses who love being dumbasses.