Another example...

...of some media coverage bending science out-of-shape:

"Twitter can make you immoral, claim scientists" - headline of an article by Jenny Hope in today's Daily Mail.

Wow, that's quite a claim - like any good headline, it draws you in to the story to find out what's behind it. It made me wonder how that claim was made; presumably some study actually involving Twitter and somehow measuring its effect on morality (how?!). But like many headlines for science stories, the reality of course doesn't quite add up...

The story is based on a paper coming out in PNAS, where researchers used brain imaging to examine responses of a group of 13 subjects to presentations of stories intended to invoke admiration, compassion and other emotions. The researchers found that when the stories were presented in "quick" formats, subjects did not have time to develop "full" emotional responses.

So far, so unsurprising, perhaps (let's leave any evaluation of the actual research to one side; it is coming out in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal). The original press release about the research contains the following quotes / comments from the researchers:

"Immordino-Yang did not blame digital media. 'It's not about what tools you have, it's about how you use those tools,' she said.

Castells said he was less concerned about online social spaces, some of which can provide opportunities for reflection, than about 'fast-moving television or virtual games.'"

...and yet the press release has the title "Can Twitter Make You Amoral? Rapid-fire Media May Confuse Your Moral Compass".

The Daily Mail takes "amoral" and turns it into "immoral", also turning a question into a supposed conclusion. And the paper illustrates the story with pictures of celebrity tweeters such as Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand and Stephen Fry, who I suppose might be considered "immoral" in the eyes of some Daily Mail readers.

Ok, what's gone on here? Well, for starters the Daily Mail article doesn't contain a single quote that hasn't been lifted straight from the press release. So it doesn't appear that their correspondent phoned up the researchers to ask any questions, which old-fashioned hacks like me consider to be actually doing the job of journalism. Of course, if they had, it might have killed the story, if the researchers gave answers like the comments in the press release that seem to pour cold water on the Twitter-bashing angle.

But given that the researchers don't blame digital media in their comments - and in fact single out TV news - where does the Twitter mention in the headline come from? Clearly a good move for garnering publicity, given that Twitter is currently the darling of the chattering classes. Was that the idea of an enterprising press officer, and did the researchers approve it? It looks like lazy journalism is distorting science again, but again researchers need to take responsibility and care for their press releases. But perhaps, to some folks, any publicity is good publicity...