October 31, 2011
A science writer’s lament about reader mail
Science journalist Christie Ashwanden posted a summary of her recent talk to the National Association of Science Writers meeting on “The Last Word on Nothing” blog.
Her talk was, “You’ve got mail, you idiot: what reader mail has taught me about science writing.”
This one is going to resonate with anyone who writes about science/medicine/health/healthcare.
Her summary:
“Tell readers that they’re wrong about something they know in their heart to be true, and they will send you hate mail.
…
…people believe what they want to believe. It doesn’t matter what you’re writing about. People don’t want to know that they could do everything right and still die of cancer. I don’t want to know that I might not be as brilliant as I think I am. So we reject the facts and fall back on our worlds of truthiness.
And personal anecdote. Don’t even bother trying to overturn those with facts. No study will ever convince the people who are certain that the vitamin helped them. I’m not sure it’s possible to convince people with data that contradict their personal experience.
But I know this: if you’re going to have any hope whatsoever, you have to speak to their story. Because that’s what you’re competing against.
Here are two letters I received about the very same article. I know which one I believe.”
Almost all of my similar experiences revolve around what I’ve written about screening tests. She cites an example of her own with a mammography story, in response to which she got this note:
Read Christie’s full piece. And, by the way, I think she does terrific work!
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Don
November 2, 2011 at 8:45 amScientific evidence? If anything in that statement might be referring to “STUDIES” it’s no wonder nobody believes any of it. Wait a day or so and you’ll get another opinion from results.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like