PR nuggets 8.9.07: spin-doctoring science
Do liberals and conservatives spindoctor science, or are renegade journalists high on anthropomorphism? Franz de Waal, who’s a scientist, a primatologist to be exact, weighs in on the primate revisionism that occurs in this month’s issue of The New Yorker. De Waal explains:
“The main message of (Ian) Parker’s piece could of course have been that fieldwork is no picnic, but instead he went for profound revelation: bonobos are not nearly as nice and sexual as they have been made out to be. Given that the bonobo’s reputation has been a thorn in the side of homophobes as well as Hobbesians, the right-wing media jumped with delight. The bonobo ‘myth’ could finally be put to rest. Parker’s piece was gleefully picked up by The Wall Street Journal and Dinesh D’Souza (yes, the same one who blamed 9/11 on the left), who accused ‘liberals’ of having fashioned the bonobo into their mascot. D’Souza urged them to stick with the donkey.”
At the end of the day, this issue is essentially about the common discomfort–on both sides of the political spectrum–with comparing humans to primates. It’s the worst kind of human exceptionalism because it ignores one simple point: We are primates. One kind of many.
Of course, it’s not just journalists who have trouble with science. So do scientists.
Jim Horton at Online Public Relations Thoughts discusses a social scientist whose data indicate that diversity within communities lowers civic participation. The problem: the scientist doesn’t like what the data say, a conundrum among scientists who seek to confirm their own views through research and are therefore exhibiting confirmation bias. The very nature of a null hypothesis versus the alternate hypothesis is that the data either show there is a statistically significant difference, or there is not. Morals, assumptions and ingrained beliefs should be put aside. It’s the beauty of research and how many startling discoveries are made unintentionally.
Horton, in one of the better PR blog posts I’ve seen on the Internet, goes one step further in extending the problem of confirmation bias by addressing the issue within public relations. He writes:
“As middle persons between organizations and audiences, we must first look hard at what is there before we attempt to persuade anyone of anything. It may be, and often is, that the ‘public’ is nowhere near where we or an organization thinks it to be. Our job is to tell the organization what is and not what the organization wants to hear. It takes skill to do that–and courage. It is easier to duck issues and mouth a party line, but it is also ineffective and wrong.
“Public relations is a difficult business when done right. It is as difficult as the job of a social scientist.”
