How reporters mangle science on Gulf oil -...

Home Video U.S. World Politics Justice Entertainment Tech Health Living Travel Opinion iReport

Editor's note: Christopher Reddy is an associate scientistand director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the WoodsHole Oceanographic Institution and has advisedgovernment agencies on oil spills and their environmentalimpact.

(CNN) -- When researchers present what the mediaperceive as "big" findings -- as my colleagues and I did last

week in reporting a plume of oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil wellin the Gulf of Mexico -- it is incumbent on scientists and journalists tokeep the results in perspective and refrain from veering intomisleading waters.

Unfortunately, in this case, both parties failed.

Reporters and editors, in their quest for the biggest story possible,injected their reports with implications unintended by scientists.

For their part, scientists from various corners of government andacademia -- including our group at the Woods Hole OceanographicInstitution (WHOI) -- let it happen. In some cases, they may haveeven encouraged it.

Instead of being able to consider our results on the basisof the information alone (''just the facts, ma'am''), readers,viewers and listeners around the world were exposed tonewspaper, TV and radio reports clouded with politicallycharged agendas that were premature at the least andoutright wrong at the most.

I must have spoken with at least 25 journalists last week,and despite my every effort to explain our findings, the media weremore interested in using the new information to portray a duelbetween competing scientists. The story turned into anus-versus-them scenario in which some scientists are right andothers are wrong. Seeking to elucidate, I felt caught in a crossfire.

On August 4, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationreleased a report giving its best initial estimates accounting for wherethe oil spilled in the Gulf went. Two weeks later, scientists at theUniversity of Georgia and the Georgia Sea Grant countered with theirown inventory, arguing NOAA underestimated the amount of oilremaining in the ocean.

Our research confirmed the existence of a subsurface oil plume inJune that did not come from a natural sea floor oil seep and that wasnot substantially degraded by deep-sea microbes. The researchadded new information to an unfolding investigation, but the mediaseemed more interested in whether our work decided whether NOAAor the Georgia group was right.

Even though my colleagues and I repeatedly avoided contrasting our

Gas prices spur Justice to eyeindustry

Borger: Trump bankrupting theGOP?

Capturing the graphic imagesof war

6 accused in gruesome slayingof Florida teen

11 political myths andconspiracy theories

NewsPulseMost popular stories right now

Explore the news with NewsPulse »

How reporters mangle science on Gulf oilBy Christopher Reddy, Special to CNNAugust 25, 2010 11:57 a.m. EDT

EDITION: U.S. INTERNATIONAL MÉXICO

Set edition preference

Sign up Log in

NewsPulse Money

Sports

Part of complete coverage on

Gulf Coast Oil Disaster

Recommend 414 people recommend this. Be the firstof your friends.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Christopher Reddy's teamconfirmed subsurface oil plumein Gulf in June

He says results were wronglyportrayed as a challenge toObama administration findings

Reddy says his study adds tobody of knowledge but doesn'tprove other findings wrong

Science is incremental, takes along time to reach definitiveconclusions, he says

RELATED TOPICS

Science and TechnologyMediaGulf of MexicoGulf Coast Oil SpillExxon Valdez

How reporters mangle science on Gulf oil - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/25/reddy.science.media...

1 of 6 4/21/11 3:24 PM

results with previous NOAA estimates that some 75 percent of thespilled oil was already gone from the Gulf, much of last week'scoverage of our work made that a prominent part of the story.

For example, The Washington Post reported, "Academic scientistsare challenging the Obama administration's assertion that most ofBP's oil in the Gulf of Mexico is either gone or rapidly disappearing --with one group Thursday announcing the discovery of a 22-mile'plume' of oil that shows little sign of vanishing."

In doing so, it cast our results as evidence of sorts that the NOAAestimates were wrong, and at the same time had the effect of givingthe Georgia work our imprimatur.

Neither of these conclusions was ever meant to be drawn from ourresearch on the oil plume. This reasoning implicit in the mediacoverage was not only premature, but it might turn out to be wrong.

Science does not work that way. It is incremental. It is not a house ofcards where one dissenting view leads to a complete collapse.Rather, science is more like a jigsaw puzzle. Each piece is added.Occasionally a wrong piece may be placed, but eventually sciencewill correct it.

Both the corrections and the completion of any scientific puzzle taketime.

Scientific peers regulate the process of presenting hypotheses,acquiring data and assessing them. In this process, questions areasked, gaps get filled, inconsistencies are hammered out,discoveries are made, problems get solved and knowledge isobtained. Science's regulatory systems have a very solid record ofaccomplishment.

Unfortunately, the process takes months or years, but in this case, ithas been compressed into days with dueling reports and newsconferences on the fantails of boats. News organizations haven't theluxury of time to distill scientific findings and put them into context,which increases the risk of oversimplifying scientific findings.

Some of these problems are scientists' fault. In our world in thepeer-review process, we liberally, passionately, sometimes harshlyinterrogate each other, where we argue over details andinterpretations of research results to ensure that they are bulletproof.Out of the academic world, reporters can magnify negativecomments by scientists about research results.

As the number of science journalists gets smaller, this problem willgrow. One solution is for scientists to gain skills needed to bridge thecommunication gaps between the academic world and the lay public,media and policymakers.

In addition, scientists need to learn how to say "no" to reporters.

For many of us, we desperately want to please a reporter, who for thefirst time cares about what you do. And scientists, including me, haveegos, so we want our thoughts and work recognized. But scientistshave a better chance of getting the story straight if they listencarefully to the questions asked by reporters and understand thereporters' goals.

In 1994, 11 scientists published a study, "The fate of the oil spilledfrom the Exxon Valdez: The mass balance is the most complete andaccurate of any major oil spill." Of these 11 authors, six were NOAAscientists, one was from academia and four from four differentconsulting firms. The Exxon Valdez oil spill happened in 1989.

Sponsored links

Prices for Solar PanelsGet Solar Panel quotes from Multiple companies. It's Free!www.solar-panels-prices.com

Six Sigma CertificationEnsure Your Success in Any Industry With Six Sigma EducationOnline.www.VillanovaU.com/SixSigma

Southwest Official SiteFly free faster with Southwest. Enroll now & get 250 bonus points!www.southwest.com


2 of 6 4/21/11 3:24 PM

We recommend From around the web

Log in orsign uptocomment

soundoff (63 Comments)Show: Newest | Oldest | Most liked

Science takes time.

If it took five years to "balance the books" on how much oil wasspilled and where it went for the Exxon Valdez spill, how are wegetting estimates of the Deepwater Horizon spill only weeksafterward? It's not trivial to decipher something as vast, fluid,complex and inaccessible as the ocean.

So given that it is so early in this investigation of the DeepwaterHorizon oil spill, I would consider both the NOAA and Georgia studiesas first passes.

Neither is absolutely right or wrong. They are certainly not thedefinitive findings, but should be thought of as a foundation fromwhich to work, road maps to use in assigning future research assetsin examining the transport and fate of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Those road maps will be refined into robust values as moreinformation becomes available. Eventually, teams of scientists will beable to "balance the books" for the Deepwater Horizon spill, too.

Over the next few months, many scientific studies on the spill will bepublished and reported on.

Journalism, the first draft of history, is incremental, too. Considereach scientific report like a chapter in an epic novel, and notnecessarily in order. Let the dust settle and read the book in a fewyears.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those ofChristopher Reddy.

FOLLOW THIS TOPIC

DmndForeignrJust tell the journalist that the sea is big, with a huge variety of physical and biologicalprocesses spread over a vast area. Common sense and media-thinking will not graspthat. On top of that, most journalists are verbal, language oriented people who cannotunderstand a scientific graph. I gave ... more7 months ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

Recommend 414 people recommend this. Be the first of yourfriends.

The Civil War was a choice

How to land a job at Facebook

Photographing the horrors of conflict

Better helmets and 'ballistic boxers' for U.S. troops

What Exxon Valdez spill can still teach us

Gulf mammal deaths likely far higher than bodycount, scientists say

[what's this]

Colleges That Bring The Highest Paycheck 2011CNBC

10 craziest tax deductions for 2011 BankRate.com

Retire at age 66, or wait? Bank Rate

Where The $200,000+ Crowd Lives CNBC

What Is the Oldest Age You Can Join the Army? eHow

7 Habits of Highly Frugal People MoneyNing

Sponsored links

Oil Mist Removal SolutionFactory Direct & Turnkey InstallsScandMist = Great Value & Resultswww.clean-air.com/scandmist.php

Hands-on ScienceCurriculum Specific Workshop TopicsA Science Field Trip comes to you!www.MadScience.org/SouthernMass

Oil and Gas InvestmentsLarge Ownership. Small InvestmentDirect Partnership. Now Fundingoilandgasinvestment.com


3 of 6 4/21/11 3:24 PM

MicheleGIt is a bafflement more so, even, when you know that most of them went to college......I thought there was atlest a minimum of "science 101" courses which are required to graduate even with an arts or humanitiesdegree. The same for science majors who must take a minimum set of humanities courses i... more7 months ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

MicheleGKudos for a well crafted essay which ex[plains the scientific process. Thank you!7 months ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

MicheleGKudos for a well crafted essay which ex[plains the scientific process. Thank you!7 months ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

OutlandReporters are like garbage collectors. Garbage in, garbage out. Then they must slant the story to make itentertaining and meet their employer's agenda. Most don't have the faintest clue on what they are reporting on.7 months ago | Like (4) | Report abuse

xlntcatThanks for trying to clarify and draw attention to the media misrepresentation of all scientific data surrounding theoil spill. I have never before been quite as disgusted with the media and yes, CNN you led the pack by creating afalse narrative in NY and then ignoring all evidence and data that ... more7 months ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

Bulldog40"How reporters mangle [just fill in the blank]..." Welcome to the Poodle Press Professor--now you're catching on.7 months ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

PanamaLaneI think its unfair to criticize the media as a whole. There are plenty of outlets that usually do it right. PBS and NPRare great examples of media outlets that do in depth reporting, giving time to conflicting ideas and not jumping toconclusions. Call them liberal if you like, but compared to stat... more7 months ago | Like (11) | Report abuse

Bulldog40They do a great job!?? Man, you need to sniff around more than one garbage can if you want to find thegood stuff. There is no nose like your own nose.7 months ago | Like | Report abuse

bharris123Reality tends to have a liberal bias.7 months ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

Tacitus6Even PBS and NPR have been pandering to the religious right. Have you noticed the proliferation ofsegments on "faith?"7 months ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

a6102658That is true, those 2 are reliable news, complete stories7 months ago | Like (1) | Report abuse


4 of 6 4/21/11 3:24 PM

csears00It is unfortunate that the media no longer desires to reveal the truth but rather only tell biased and uninformedstories.7 months ago | Like (5) | Report abuse

Bulldog40Dude, that's a bromide nowadays.7 months ago | Like | Report abuse

Coop5493It sells, what do you expect?7 months ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

a6102658It is the sad state of affairs our country is right now, deplorable. science has to fight to be heard, it wasn't alwayslike this, I remember when "The Enquirer" used to be considered garbage, now, everyone is doing it, includingCNN.7 months ago | Like (2) | Report abuse

GuestThis is the best and most elucidating CNN story that has been on this website in the last several weeks. Finally,some real (non-yellow) journalism.7 months ago | Like (11) | Report abuse

JayEm62Not to mention that the grammar and spelling seem correct too.7 months ago | Like | Report abuse

CubanMomWhat else is new? The Media often mangels the news, not to mention science! The goal is to get the story out withlittle research. For example, all the media coverage of the so-called grassroots Tea Party, did not inform viewersnor members of the TP that the "founders" of the TP are billionaire ... more7 months ago | Like (3) | Report abuse

Bulldog40Expose it yourself. Join a Tea Party. That way, you would at least know something about what you're talkingabout.7 months ago | Like | Report abuse

TheNewWayThe media and science do not mix. The media over-dramatizes the process of acceptance and rejection that truescience undergoes. They jump on something when it is immature, just a hypothesis, and then when it is testedand denied as a theory they call the scientists involved fraudulent. What needs t... more7 months ago | Like (8) | Report abuse

xlntcatAfter the inane reporting of the oil spill, I seriously doubt that a handful of the media and the press couldpass 7th grade science. We were dealing with an area where what was known was minimal compared to theunknown which always means you can assume that half of what you believe to be true is s... more7 months ago | Like | Report abuse

Zombiekingsummary cnn=troll7 months ago | Like (5) | Report abuse


5 of 6 4/21/11 3:24 PM

How reporters mangle science on Gulf oil -...

Documents

Transcript of How reporters mangle science on Gulf oil -...