Tuesday 10 July 2012

News Bias

"Can spending less time sitting down add years to your life?"

The first paragraph of this BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767278) on whether spending time sitting down actually increases your risk of death or not appears misleading to the research that has actually been produced. They say "limiting the time we spend sitting to just three hours a day could add an extra two years to our life expectancy." The key word in this sentence is the word 'could'. Later in the report it is reported that "experts say the US estimates are too unreliable to predict personal risk" and even that "the researchers themselves acknowledge there are flaws that make its findings less than reliable." So why have the BBC published this report and why do other news corporations publish research in their papers/websites that doesn't appear to give a conclusion? For example, I found another website that published this story but had a completely different angle that seemed to suggest it was firm. The website (http://tinyurl.com/bmbwxot) did not publish anything about the fact that the research may have had flaws and only suggested that it was unreliable was when they stated "they used the data to extrapolate the effects of sitting down on the health of an entire population" but to the eye of someone who doesn't understand the term extrapolation in terms of data this would mean nothing and would presume that the data was in fact reliable.

But why would 'Healthcare Today' take to the side of the argument that the data is reliable? What is their motive for giving a bias to the data? Going to the root of the data, the actual paper itself from BMJOpen, I found that Dr Peter Katzmarzyk, the man who conducted the research, came to the conclusion that "reducing sedentary behaviours such as sitting and television viewing may have the potential to increase life expectancy in the USA" (http://tinyurl.com/d4jlx8w) and that the rise in life expectancy is in the bounds of "1.39 and 2.69 years for sitting and 0.48 and 2.51 years for television viewing" (as above). This is a published piece of research and it is now the job of other scientists to research this further and test the conclusions of Dr Katzmarzyk, so in the future we will see the validity of the data.

But the point I was trying to illustrate was that you should never take the first news story you see as truth, always try to get opinion from lots of news corporations to account for all of the sides of the story that they are trying to portray. This means that you can build a picture of the story and the different angles to it. The best items to read would be the paper itself so that you get the pure data and can draw your own opinion. I learnt this by reading a book called 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre who shows how to get past the media angle and at the data and opinions that are valued in the science community i.e. leading researchers/scientists.

No comments:

Post a Comment