Hi Mike and all
There is a literature on this.
When you use words such as ‘distorted’, ‘misrepresented’ and ‘sensationalised’, you are taking a particular standpoint: that there is a non-distorted (perfectly formed?) version of the story; that there is a ‘correct’ representation, and that our emotions (which emerge from sensations) are not supposed to be part of the process.
The main argument of the literature is that every story in every medium is in some way or ways ‘distorted’ – a more neutral word is ‘framed’ - by the context and processes of the message; that our pluralised mass media audiences deal with multiple representations and form their own out of their encounters in the world; and that we all always rely on sensations to get and hold attention and encourage engagement.
This is not a popular argument with some groups, especially those who feel that science tells THE story and other professions or individuals are not qualified to mess with it. There is a spectrum of opinion. Of course, we are all free to spread whatever version of the message we feel is the ‘right’ one, as indeed are audiences to choose the version they want to hear.
Stuart Allan’s book Media, Risk and Science is a good read on this and related issues.
Anyone who is interested to see how theory could inform their views on sci comm practice might note the new PG Cert at Cambridge: http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/course/postgraduate-certificate-practical-science-communication.
Jane
Dr Jane Gregory
Course Director, PG Cert Practical Science Communication
Institute of Continuing Education
Madingley Hall
University of Cambridge
NEW: University of Cambridge PG Cert in Practical Science Communication, http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/course/postgraduate-certificate-practical-science-communication
To unsubscribe from the PSCI-COM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=PSCI-COM&A=1