Selective Reporting

In his influential work, political science Professor Robert M. Entmann characterizes framing as "selecting certain aspects of a perceived reality and enhancing their prominence in communication to advocate a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, or treatment suggestion."

In simpler terms, selective reporting distorts reality. This practice is rampant in media, prompting informed individuals to seek sources or references before accepting information as truth.

This concept relates closely to fake news; the distinction being that selective reporting is often based on scientific data, while fake news typically lacks any credible foundation. As a creator, I meticulously verify the data I come across before embedding it in my work. Even when statistics are accurate, they can still mislead.

As a scientist and storyteller, integrating information is second nature to me. However, I never realized the consequences of manipulating numbers until I read "The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data" by statistician David Spiegelhalter—an eye-opener!

Data Pipeline

To comprehend selective reporting, visualizing the flow of information is essential.

The Press Office:

The press office serves as a crucial link in the information pipeline, bridging academia and journalism. Unfortunately, many people shy away from complex research papers, placing immense pressure on press offices to deliver credible and precise information. Yet, discrepancies persist:

• 60% of Americans believe press offices are politically biased. (Source: pewresearch)
• 40% of press releases from UK universities are exaggerated. (Source: The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data)
• 36% of UK university press releases included exaggerated claims about animal research implications for humans. (Source: The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data)

The Media:

Assuming information reaches press offices without distortion, journalists now face the task of crafting it into captivating narratives. Editors refine these stories, generating catchy headlines designed to maximize clicks before hitting "publish."

More Clicks = More Readers

Consequently, statistics and stories inhabit different realms. Statistics depict how the world is, while narratives portray how it should be.

In today's landscape, many creators reliant on their audience grapple with these tactics:

• Selecting stories that defy conventional expectations
• Prioritizing drama over factual accuracy
• Using eye-catching yet uninformative infographics
• Citing statistics to bolster claims
• Exaggerating findings when necessary
• Focusing on relative rather than absolute risks (discussed below)

Negative Framing

Take, for instance, a notable study involving over 4 million Swedish-born individuals, examining socioeconomic status and its potential correlation with brain tumor risks. The findings were striking:

• Glioma and meningioma (two brain tumor types) were more prevalent among those with higher education (three or more years at university) compared to individuals with only primary education.
• Non-manual workers exhibited a 50% increased risk compared to blue-collar workers.
• A higher incidence of glioma was linked to higher-income individuals.

These results quickly reached the press office, leading to the sensational headline: "Why attending university increases the risk of brain tumors."

For some, this could be a compelling reason to abandon higher education, while others might find it undermines their confidence in academic pursuit. Did countless late-night study sessions heat up the brain, leading to tumor development? Should universities consider closing their doors for good?

While the study's implications are significant, researchers suggested that the results may be skewed; uneducated individuals are less likely to register their cancer, potentially inflating tumor occurrence among the more educated group. However, journalists rarely highlight such nuances, fearing it could jeopardize their readership.

Positive Framing

Positive framing is a marketer's ally. Unlike negative framing, it casts data in a more favorable light. For instance, consider these two products:

• Product (A): 90% fat-free
• Product (B): Contains 10% fat

While both products are equivalent, "90% fat-free" sounds more appealing than "10% fat." The same principle applies to medications: Drug (X) claims 80% efficacy, whereas Drug (Y) is described as 20% ineffective.

Our minds often lean towards the negative—a phenomenon known as negativity bias—resulting in skewed evaluations of pros and cons in our decisions.

Absolute vs. Relative Risks

Consider this common headline: "Individuals who do Sudoku have a 20% lower risk of dementia."

What does it truly mean? Often, such statements indicate relative risks compared to another risk, while the absolute risk remains unknown. For instance, if 7 out of 100 people develop dementia, a 20% decrease would drop the risk to 6 out of 100.

A casual observer might find the 20% decrease alarming, yet it merely reflects a one-person difference.

Science vs. Stories

A reliable metric for measuring a country’s growth potential is its literacy rate. Higher literacy equates to more skilled jobs, leading to greater wealth. Therefore, journalists, authors, and educators strive to disseminate scientific knowledge to the public.

Science quenches our curiosity by answering hypotheses through statistics. However, conveying statistics in an understandable manner often requires storytelling, which poses a challenge.

As Spiegelhalter poignantly notes, "Traditional storylines require an emotional impact, a strong narrative, and a satisfying conclusion; science rarely delivers all these elements, tempting one to oversimplify and overstate."

Findings should be presented honestly, regardless of their perceived dullness. Only then should storytellers have the freedom to express their interpretations, complemented by diverse viewpoints. Establishing dependable and unbiased baselines is crucial.

Final Thoughts

We've seen how selective reporting shapes the public's interpretation of research. These studies become vulnerable to the media's tendency to present them in a sensational manner.

While not everyone can afford the time to scrutinize every piece of information, we can cultivate a more discerning mindset to navigate data effectively.

The solution? Common sense. If presented information seems illogical, it’s likely been reframed—positively or negatively. For example, a study revealing that a gene associated with high blood pressure is present in 10% of individuals might be framed as: "Nine out of ten people carry a gene that increases their risk of high blood pressure."

Are both statements equivalent? Certainly not!

Negative framing isn't always intentional; even the best creators can misrepresent data. Thus, exercising common sense and cross-referencing multiple sources remains the most effective strategy.

If you found this discussion valuable, consider subscribing for $5/month. Using this link supports my work!

Take care!

The first video, "Don't Feel Bad For Commentary Channel Victims... (Drama)," discusses the psychological impact of selective reporting on creators and audiences.

The second video, "Content Creators are Lying to Everyone for Profit," explores the motivations behind data manipulation in the creator economy.