» » It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality

It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality epub download

by Joel Schwartz,S. Robert Lichter,David Murray


Rather than assessing the validity of the scares themselves, the authors examine how newspapers covered a wide variety of stories, from global warming to the extent of domestic violence

It Ain't Necessarily So book. It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the confusion and inaccuracies surrounding media reporting of scientific studies, surveys, and statistics.

It Ain't Necessarily So book.

We’re dedicated to reader privacy so we never track you. We never accept ads. But we still need to pay for servers and staff.

It Ain’t Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality. Class Format 1. Each class will begin with a ‘warm up exercise’ where a chapter of. It Ain’t Necessarily So. will be discussed or a news story will be introduced and discussed. This is meant to be a collaborative exercise and I hope that students will bring interesting, current news stories to the class.

It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the confusion and inaccuracies . But beware: It Ain't Necessarily So may confirm your worst fears about the media. S. Robert Lichter, David Murray, Joel Schwartz.

It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the confusion and inaccuracies surrounding media reporting of scientific studies, surveys, and statistics. Whether the problem is bad science, media politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge, this book gives news consumers the tools to penetrate the hype and dig out the facts. Which is precisely why it's such an important contribution to our understanding of how things really operate inside the American newsroom.

How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality. By David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter. Which is precisely why it’s such an important contribution to our understanding of how things really operate inside the American newsroom. Category: Reference Film Performing Arts. Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias). David Murray is director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, . and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. Joel Schwartz is senior adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. About S. ISBN13:9780142001462.

It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the confusion and inaccuracies surrounding media reporting of. . Every textbook comes with a 21-day "Any Reason" guarantee.

Books with the subject: Journalism, Scientific. It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality - David Murray, Joel Schwartz, S Robert Lichter. ty, journalism, scientific, objectivity, bibliography.

See It Ain’t Necessarily So: How the Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, David Murray . That frightening news made headlines across the United States

See It Ain’t Necessarily So: How the Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and S. half-truths, quarter-truths, and sort-of-truths. That frightening news made headlines across the United States. But as David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and S. Robert Lichter point out in It Ain’t Necessarily So, the CDC did not include the actual numbers of AIDS cases in the summary that garnered the headlines. Those numbers actually showed a small decline in the number of women with AIDS.

Anthrax scares. Airplane crashes. The AIDS epidemic. Presidential election polls and voting results. Global warming. All these news stories require scientific savvy, first to report, and then-for the average person-to understand. It Ain't Necessarily So cuts through the confusion and inaccuracies surrounding media reporting of scientific studies, surveys, and statistics. Whether the problem is bad science, media politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge, this book gives news consumers the tools to penetrate the hype and dig out the facts. "Whether it's a scientific study on day care or health care, hunger in America or the environment, once it gets into the hands of journalists - look out! You may think you're getting the straight story - but it ain't necessarily so, as this aptly named book makes clear. But beware: It Ain't Necessarily So may confirm your worst fears about the media. Which is precisely why it's such an important contribution to our understanding of how things really operate inside the American newsroom." (Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias)

It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality epub download

ISBN13: 978-0142001462

ISBN: 0142001465

Author: Joel Schwartz,S. Robert Lichter,David Murray

Category: Reference

Subcategory: Writing Research & Publishing Guides

Language: English

Publisher: Penguin Books; Reprint edition (September 24, 2002)

Pages: 288 pages

ePUB size: 1822 kb

FB2 size: 1539 kb

Rating: 4.1

Votes: 779

Other Formats: txt mbr doc rtf

Related to It Ain't Necessarily So: How the Media Remake Our Picture of Reality ePub books

Eng.Men
The book is very informative, and fairly concise, which is probably my only criticism of it. I would have loved to read more case studies! Actually, something like this should have a newsletter.. hmmm hey authors, how about something via email?
I was already suspicious of much I heard in the media, but this book fully opened my eyes. I will no longer just take for granted the conclusions reached by our esteemed media.
Read it, and pass it around to your friends and family, it can only serve to open their eyes as well, that is, assuming they want to open them..
Eng.Men
The book is very informative, and fairly concise, which is probably my only criticism of it. I would have loved to read more case studies! Actually, something like this should have a newsletter.. hmmm hey authors, how about something via email?
I was already suspicious of much I heard in the media, but this book fully opened my eyes. I will no longer just take for granted the conclusions reached by our esteemed media.
Read it, and pass it around to your friends and family, it can only serve to open their eyes as well, that is, assuming they want to open them..
Dolid
The media has an awesome power to mold public opinion and shape policy. This book not only sets the record straight on various issues through its examples (worth the reading just for that), but shows how to become better news consumers. The research is impressive, the writing made the reading easy and the perspectives gave me a whole new view of what I am reading, seeing and hearing in the media. This is a real eye opener.
Dolid
The media has an awesome power to mold public opinion and shape policy. This book not only sets the record straight on various issues through its examples (worth the reading just for that), but shows how to become better news consumers. The research is impressive, the writing made the reading easy and the perspectives gave me a whole new view of what I am reading, seeing and hearing in the media. This is a real eye opener.
Doomredeemer
Don't believe what you read in the popular press or hear on the media - that's the lesson affirmed by the authors. They review a gaggle of cases where the reportage of some issue or event was obviously filtered, through intent or incompetance, to fit the story the author wanted to state.
Rabid liberals who don't realize how far left the media has seemed to come will view this book as a subtle right-wing treatise. However, these are people who, like their reactionary counterparts, internally filter out anything that doesn't fit into their own paradigm, and they are better ignored. Nothing will help people who are too tilted in either direction, but this is not a reason to dismiss important work.
In all, this should be required reading for every newspaper and television reporter and editor and journalism student, not to mention every adult who wants to think independantly.
Doomredeemer
Don't believe what you read in the popular press or hear on the media - that's the lesson affirmed by the authors. They review a gaggle of cases where the reportage of some issue or event was obviously filtered, through intent or incompetance, to fit the story the author wanted to state.
Rabid liberals who don't realize how far left the media has seemed to come will view this book as a subtle right-wing treatise. However, these are people who, like their reactionary counterparts, internally filter out anything that doesn't fit into their own paradigm, and they are better ignored. Nothing will help people who are too tilted in either direction, but this is not a reason to dismiss important work.
In all, this should be required reading for every newspaper and television reporter and editor and journalism student, not to mention every adult who wants to think independantly.
Nakora
This is another contribution to a growing library of books that focus on the misreporting of facts by the media. In particular, issues that are dealt with include, but are not limited to, misuse of statistics, exaggeration of minor facts, weaknesses and misinterpretations of surveys, possible motives to deliberately mislead, etc. I must agree with some prior reviewers that the book does contain a certain amount of repetition. Although some of these replications appear to have been made to cast a somewhat different slant on a given issue, they have been a bit overdone.

Some books on this topic tend to be rather light-hearted and even humorous and are likely aimed at a very bread readership. This one, on the other hand, has a much more serious tone and, as a result, may be most appealing to the more seriously interested readers. The writing style is authoritative, focussed, scholarly but, at times, rather dry. As pointed out above, the occasional repetition that it contains has already proven annoying to some readers.
Nakora
This is another contribution to a growing library of books that focus on the misreporting of facts by the media. In particular, issues that are dealt with include, but are not limited to, misuse of statistics, exaggeration of minor facts, weaknesses and misinterpretations of surveys, possible motives to deliberately mislead, etc. I must agree with some prior reviewers that the book does contain a certain amount of repetition. Although some of these replications appear to have been made to cast a somewhat different slant on a given issue, they have been a bit overdone.

Some books on this topic tend to be rather light-hearted and even humorous and are likely aimed at a very bread readership. This one, on the other hand, has a much more serious tone and, as a result, may be most appealing to the more seriously interested readers. The writing style is authoritative, focussed, scholarly but, at times, rather dry. As pointed out above, the occasional repetition that it contains has already proven annoying to some readers.
Akisame
It is more than curious that in a nation where most people avoid science courses in high school, most people also avidly absorb news stories based on scientific research.

That implies a high confidence among readers that reporters can adequately explain the proper import of research that the readers are unqualified to judge for themselves.

David Murray, Joel Schwartz and Robert Lichter suggest they ought to be less trusting.

There have been a number of accessible books debunking various scares that got a good press, notably the late Aaron Wildavsky's "But Is It True?" "It Ain't Necessarily So" takes a different tack.

Rather than assessing the validity of the scares themselves, the authors examine how newspapers covered a wide variety of stories, from global warming to the extent of domestic violence.

They found that quality was spotty, and the most prestigious papers were as likely to screw up as anyone else. (They ignored, quite properly, electronic "journalism.") Many stories were covered (in their view) adequately in one sheet and deplorably carelessly in another; and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was as likely to outperform The Washington Post as the other way around on a particular story.

The book is arranged in chapters of case studies, each chapter illustrating a different way news supposedly based on science can be misreported.

Topics include why worthy stories sometimes get little attention, why news mountains are heaped up out of research molehills, how statistics can be cooked, the pitfalls of surveys and of drawing conclusions by measuring proxies rather than the real thing, and various statistical alarums and excursions.

Their orientation is that the situation is not nearly as gloomy as we have been led to think.

"What if," they ask, "the magnitude of our daily dangers has been considerably overblown? What if, in fact, neither the underlying science nor the overlying headline . . . was quite what it seemed to be?"

Murray is director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, D.C.; Schwartz is a senior adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute; and Lichter is president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington.

Although their studies are of how news was covered, their method has the effect of also presenting evidence debunking various stories. (It is essential to read the endnotes, which make up nearly a fifth of the book and contain important details not in the main text.)

Most of these doused stories are what might be called green panics: silicone breast implants, electromagnetic field poisoning, etc. Other stories having their significance devalued here are leftish ideas, such as that minorities are discriminated against in getting mortgage loans or that poverty is a cause of elevated infant mortality.

There was room for a postscript (but there is none) considering whether they chose their examples because a) they had another agenda besides the stated one; or, b) editors run a lot more dubious panic stories from the left than from the right.

I'd put my money on b if I had to guess.

Anyhow, their analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound.

"Despite our criticism," they write, "we nevertheless have an abiding respect for the journalists who serve us in a vital capacity."

True enough, people who don't get their science filtered through reporters are not going to get any science in their intellectual diet at all.
Akisame
It is more than curious that in a nation where most people avoid science courses in high school, most people also avidly absorb news stories based on scientific research.

That implies a high confidence among readers that reporters can adequately explain the proper import of research that the readers are unqualified to judge for themselves.

David Murray, Joel Schwartz and Robert Lichter suggest they ought to be less trusting.

There have been a number of accessible books debunking various scares that got a good press, notably the late Aaron Wildavsky's "But Is It True?" "It Ain't Necessarily So" takes a different tack.

Rather than assessing the validity of the scares themselves, the authors examine how newspapers covered a wide variety of stories, from global warming to the extent of domestic violence.

They found that quality was spotty, and the most prestigious papers were as likely to screw up as anyone else. (They ignored, quite properly, electronic "journalism.") Many stories were covered (in their view) adequately in one sheet and deplorably carelessly in another; and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was as likely to outperform The Washington Post as the other way around on a particular story.

The book is arranged in chapters of case studies, each chapter illustrating a different way news supposedly based on science can be misreported.

Topics include why worthy stories sometimes get little attention, why news mountains are heaped up out of research molehills, how statistics can be cooked, the pitfalls of surveys and of drawing conclusions by measuring proxies rather than the real thing, and various statistical alarums and excursions.

Their orientation is that the situation is not nearly as gloomy as we have been led to think.

"What if," they ask, "the magnitude of our daily dangers has been considerably overblown? What if, in fact, neither the underlying science nor the overlying headline . . . was quite what it seemed to be?"

Murray is director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington, D.C.; Schwartz is a senior adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute; and Lichter is president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington.

Although their studies are of how news was covered, their method has the effect of also presenting evidence debunking various stories. (It is essential to read the endnotes, which make up nearly a fifth of the book and contain important details not in the main text.)

Most of these doused stories are what might be called green panics: silicone breast implants, electromagnetic field poisoning, etc. Other stories having their significance devalued here are leftish ideas, such as that minorities are discriminated against in getting mortgage loans or that poverty is a cause of elevated infant mortality.

There was room for a postscript (but there is none) considering whether they chose their examples because a) they had another agenda besides the stated one; or, b) editors run a lot more dubious panic stories from the left than from the right.

I'd put my money on b if I had to guess.

Anyhow, their analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound.

"Despite our criticism," they write, "we nevertheless have an abiding respect for the journalists who serve us in a vital capacity."

True enough, people who don't get their science filtered through reporters are not going to get any science in their intellectual diet at all.