Two recent New York Times articles caught my eye. One of them was down right apocalyptic and the other claimed a government agency is knowingly poisoning Americans:
A ‘Second Tree of Life’ Could Wreak Havoc, Scientists Warn https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/science/mirror-life-microbes-research.html
The E.P.A. Promotes Toxic Fertilizer. 3M Told It of Risks Years Ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/climate/epa-pfas-fertilizer-3m-forever-chemicals.html
What I don't understand is why we, as a society, continue to support this kind of fear mongering in journalism. On the face of it, surely we all know that this is hyperbole. If either of these things were literally true, then at least some of us should be stopping what we're doing and figuring out how to prevent these calamities from effecting our communities. Yet, we put up with this kind of exaggeration. There are two major problems I have here. For one, crying wolf, especially as a journalist, hurts everyone, because it erodes trust in both journalism and science. Secondly, it keeps us hooked in an unthinking way. These news pieces are primarily about a feeling, in this case fear. What the two pieces I linked to have in common is that they focus on a sense of dread and fear by omitting the known and focusing on the unknown. I call this clickbait journalism for the doom-scrolling era.
I understand that the journalists behind the two pieces I linked to put a lot of effort into researching and writing their pieces. When I say this is clickbait journalism, I mean that the final presentation of the news purposefully lacks certain facts in order to focus on the tone. Take the first article for example, A ‘Second Tree of Life’ Could Wreak Havoc, Scientists Warn. There are two important things that Carl Zimmer does to keep up the tone of fear in the piece. One, he confusingly weaves excited quotes from scientists doing research on differently-handed (left-handed versus right-handed) biologically interesting molecules, between scary quotes from scientists saying such research could end life as we know it on Earth. This leaves the reader wondering why the scientists are doing the research in the first place, which provides the exaggerated sense of urgency to the claims of concern.
Two, Zimmer provides little scientific context and no historical context. When I was in middle school back in the mid-'90s I read Martin Gardner's The New Ambidextrous Universe, which is all about mirror symmetry in math and nature. Gardner has multiple chapters devoted to handedness in molecules and biology. It's a fascinating read and I will never forget the chilling implications: the handedness of the invisible molecules that make up life on Earth can determine life or death. Importantly, this has been known for many decades (Gardner first published his book in 1964). And not only because of thought experiments and scientific first principals, but because of actual tragedies with pharmaceuticals.
In the 1960s a drug called thalidomide was being prescribed before it was known to cause birth defects, causing significant tragedy and changing the regulation and perception of pharmaceuticals in the US. The most salient and important finding about how thalidomide caused birth defects: the handedness of the molecule. Many molecules naturally come in both left-handed and right-handed varieties. A drug such as ibuprofen is actually sold as a mixture of both. Ibuprofen in one handedness is active in the human body, producing its intended medicinal effect, and in the other is simply inactive. Thalidomide, unfortunately, is different. In one handedness it has the intended active medicinal effect, but in the other handedness it has a different active, but unintended, effect: birth defects.
My point is that the journalist presents things in such a way that an uninformed reader would likely assume that it is only with cutting edge research that we are conceiving of biologically important molecules and potentially even entire cells that have a different handedness. When the reality is that this has long been known, especially by experts in the field of molecular biology. If you want to read more about handedness in pharmaceuticals you can check out chiralpedia (here's a post that mentions thalidomide and ibuprofen: https://chiralpedia.com/blog/chirality-in-pharmaceuticals-the-impact-of-molecular-handedness-on-medicine/ . Chirality is the technical term for handedness.
In the second article, The E.P.A. Promotes Toxic Fertilizer. 3M Told It of Risks Years Ago, we are presented with the same tone, but in a different context. The journalist Hiroko Tabuchi has an important fact to convey: some fertilizer created from human waste can contain PFAS, a so-called "forever chemical", and the EPA has technically known about this for a long time, because they had scientific research about it given to them from the company 3M. This is a surprising fact, but the rest of the article focuses on tone over substance. For example, many times in the article we are told that there are "high levels" or "high concentrations" or "surprising" levels of PFAS found in all sorts of places. Not once are we told how much were found and any sort of comparison with other chemicals or elements. These are very important omissions, because of course we don't expect there to be literally zero dangerous toxins in our environment. We are also told that PFAS is "linked to" things like cancer, but again any kind of comparison of risk is entirely omitted.
Tabuchi pushes a dramatically fearful tone throughout the article. Yet at no point does the journalist give us any factual reason to be worried about a direct harm caused by PFAS appearing in some fertilizer. Apple seeds naturally contain arsenic and bananas contain a significant amount of radioactive potassium. Those are dangerous things found naturally and directly inside things we eat. Organic "natural" pesticides can include dangerous metals like copper, yet we spray them on crops at organic farms. What is the actual evidence-based risk of harm caused by fertilizer containing PFAS? What level of PFAS would be harmful either in this case or even in general? Instead of posing such questions, the journalist assumes the reader is already afraid of PFAS chemicals and then amplifies that tone through repetition. Let's be clear though, we do know a lot about the risks of PFAS. Immunologist and biologist Dr. Andrea Love sums up a lot of the research in an article she wrote in April of 2024. Her article contains ample comparisons of evidence-based risks and helpful facts. It's a real reality check. You can read it here: https://news.immunologic.org/p/epas-proposed-levels-for-pfas-in.
In summary, I think there has long been a trend in journalism that increasingly promotes tone-based reporting. My hunch would be that it has something to do with social media and the for-profit drive to get views, clicks, and shares. Regardless of the underlying cause, it makes it hard to take some journalism seriously and that harms everyone. In the end, I'm left scratching my head. What can be done about clickbait journalism in the doom-scrolling era?
A ‘Second Tree of Life’ Could Wreak Havoc, Scientists Warn https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/science/mirror-life-microbes-research.html
The E.P.A. Promotes Toxic Fertilizer. 3M Told It of Risks Years Ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/climate/epa-pfas-fertilizer-3m-forever-chemicals.html
What I don't understand is why we, as a society, continue to support this kind of fear mongering in journalism. On the face of it, surely we all know that this is hyperbole. If either of these things were literally true, then at least some of us should be stopping what we're doing and figuring out how to prevent these calamities from effecting our communities. Yet, we put up with this kind of exaggeration. There are two major problems I have here. For one, crying wolf, especially as a journalist, hurts everyone, because it erodes trust in both journalism and science. Secondly, it keeps us hooked in an unthinking way. These news pieces are primarily about a feeling, in this case fear. What the two pieces I linked to have in common is that they focus on a sense of dread and fear by omitting the known and focusing on the unknown. I call this clickbait journalism for the doom-scrolling era.
I understand that the journalists behind the two pieces I linked to put a lot of effort into researching and writing their pieces. When I say this is clickbait journalism, I mean that the final presentation of the news purposefully lacks certain facts in order to focus on the tone. Take the first article for example, A ‘Second Tree of Life’ Could Wreak Havoc, Scientists Warn. There are two important things that Carl Zimmer does to keep up the tone of fear in the piece. One, he confusingly weaves excited quotes from scientists doing research on differently-handed (left-handed versus right-handed) biologically interesting molecules, between scary quotes from scientists saying such research could end life as we know it on Earth. This leaves the reader wondering why the scientists are doing the research in the first place, which provides the exaggerated sense of urgency to the claims of concern.
Two, Zimmer provides little scientific context and no historical context. When I was in middle school back in the mid-'90s I read Martin Gardner's The New Ambidextrous Universe, which is all about mirror symmetry in math and nature. Gardner has multiple chapters devoted to handedness in molecules and biology. It's a fascinating read and I will never forget the chilling implications: the handedness of the invisible molecules that make up life on Earth can determine life or death. Importantly, this has been known for many decades (Gardner first published his book in 1964). And not only because of thought experiments and scientific first principals, but because of actual tragedies with pharmaceuticals.
In the 1960s a drug called thalidomide was being prescribed before it was known to cause birth defects, causing significant tragedy and changing the regulation and perception of pharmaceuticals in the US. The most salient and important finding about how thalidomide caused birth defects: the handedness of the molecule. Many molecules naturally come in both left-handed and right-handed varieties. A drug such as ibuprofen is actually sold as a mixture of both. Ibuprofen in one handedness is active in the human body, producing its intended medicinal effect, and in the other is simply inactive. Thalidomide, unfortunately, is different. In one handedness it has the intended active medicinal effect, but in the other handedness it has a different active, but unintended, effect: birth defects.
My point is that the journalist presents things in such a way that an uninformed reader would likely assume that it is only with cutting edge research that we are conceiving of biologically important molecules and potentially even entire cells that have a different handedness. When the reality is that this has long been known, especially by experts in the field of molecular biology. If you want to read more about handedness in pharmaceuticals you can check out chiralpedia (here's a post that mentions thalidomide and ibuprofen: https://chiralpedia.com/blog/chirality-in-pharmaceuticals-the-impact-of-molecular-handedness-on-medicine/ . Chirality is the technical term for handedness.
In the second article, The E.P.A. Promotes Toxic Fertilizer. 3M Told It of Risks Years Ago, we are presented with the same tone, but in a different context. The journalist Hiroko Tabuchi has an important fact to convey: some fertilizer created from human waste can contain PFAS, a so-called "forever chemical", and the EPA has technically known about this for a long time, because they had scientific research about it given to them from the company 3M. This is a surprising fact, but the rest of the article focuses on tone over substance. For example, many times in the article we are told that there are "high levels" or "high concentrations" or "surprising" levels of PFAS found in all sorts of places. Not once are we told how much were found and any sort of comparison with other chemicals or elements. These are very important omissions, because of course we don't expect there to be literally zero dangerous toxins in our environment. We are also told that PFAS is "linked to" things like cancer, but again any kind of comparison of risk is entirely omitted.
Tabuchi pushes a dramatically fearful tone throughout the article. Yet at no point does the journalist give us any factual reason to be worried about a direct harm caused by PFAS appearing in some fertilizer. Apple seeds naturally contain arsenic and bananas contain a significant amount of radioactive potassium. Those are dangerous things found naturally and directly inside things we eat. Organic "natural" pesticides can include dangerous metals like copper, yet we spray them on crops at organic farms. What is the actual evidence-based risk of harm caused by fertilizer containing PFAS? What level of PFAS would be harmful either in this case or even in general? Instead of posing such questions, the journalist assumes the reader is already afraid of PFAS chemicals and then amplifies that tone through repetition. Let's be clear though, we do know a lot about the risks of PFAS. Immunologist and biologist Dr. Andrea Love sums up a lot of the research in an article she wrote in April of 2024. Her article contains ample comparisons of evidence-based risks and helpful facts. It's a real reality check. You can read it here: https://news.immunologic.org/p/epas-proposed-levels-for-pfas-in.
In summary, I think there has long been a trend in journalism that increasingly promotes tone-based reporting. My hunch would be that it has something to do with social media and the for-profit drive to get views, clicks, and shares. Regardless of the underlying cause, it makes it hard to take some journalism seriously and that harms everyone. In the end, I'm left scratching my head. What can be done about clickbait journalism in the doom-scrolling era?