20/20 and Skepticism in the media

[sgtpepperlhcb2]

I just finished watching the 20/20 special "Duped in America" and I must say I am pleased with the report. It was informative and even had a spot with Micheal Shermer. On a larger scale, I am glad that logic and critical thinking are becoming more and more common in media, with P&T:BS and specials like this one bringing these necessary scientific basics into a media that is more known for tagging "the Truth is out there" to a show about the paranormal.

 

[blutoski]

I just finished watching the 20/20 special "Duped in America" and I must say I am pleased with the report. It was informative and even had a spot with Micheal Shermer. On a larger scale, I am glad that logic and critical thinking are becoming more and more common in media, with P&T:BS and specials like this one bringing these necessary scientific basics into a media that is more known for tagging "the Truth is out there" to a show about the paranormal.

I wonder if this is true, though. I'm unaware of any objective studies, so if anybody has references, I'd be grateful.

My take on it is that it's a bit of a man-bites-dog phenomenon: in the mediaverse of woo, there are a few skeptical standouts. This is to be expected, if we assume that media is product for consumers who prefer to see material that reflects their interests.

My wife is addicted to Mythbusters, and they're a big hit, but keep in mind that they deliberately avoid sensitive topics such as healthfraud or religious claims.

My impression is that common-sense balanced media has evaporated, and content has become either extreme crap or extreme skepticism.

Shows like P&T:BS are not exactly 'popular' in the grand scheme of things. Maybe CSI is a little closer to what could be called a scientific hit, but keep in mind that this isn't a big content change (in the 70s, it was called "Quincy", &c).

 

[shecky]

I saw this show and thought it was typically craptacular 20/20. I almost couldn't bear keeping tuned in during the first two stupid stories about con artists. And the one about the woman duped by the psychic gets no sympathy from me. She was an idiot just asking to be fleeced of $200k. This was no exposé about how folks are more gullible than ever. It was just a collection of buffoons to gawk at.

Blutoski, funny you should mention Quincy. A local tv station is airing reruns, and it's amusing to see after so many years how cheesy that show really was. I love Jack Klugman, but Quincy was quite the buttinski.

 

[fuelair]

I saw this show and thought it was typically craptacular 20/20. I almost couldn't bear keeping tuned in during the first two stupid stories about con artists. And the one about the woman duped by the psychic gets no sympathy from me. She was an idiot just asking to be fleeced of $200k. This was no exposé about how folks are more gullible than ever. It was just a collection of buffoons to gawk at.

Blutoski, funny you should mention Quincy. A local tv station is airing reruns, and it's amusing to see after so many years how cheesy that show really was. I love Jack Klugman, but Quincy was quite the buttinski.

That is true - after they got into the solve a societal problem a week syndeome. Before that, it was a fun show!!!

 

[bignickel]

Blutoski, funny you should mention Quincy. A local tv station is airing reruns, and it's amusing to see after so many years how cheesy that show really was. I love Jack Klugman, but Quincy was quite the buttinski.

Punk music kills!

D@mmit.

 

[Beady]

My wife is addicted to Mythbusters, and they're a big hit, but keep in mind that they deliberately avoid sensitive topics such as healthfraud or religious claims.

Be fair. MB's metier is engineering, and it would be a little difficult for them to engineer (in this context) valid and photogenic tests for health and religion. I'd rather see them concentrate on something they're good at, than have them enter a field where they have no real experience.

 

[Dunstan]

Be fair. MB's metier is engineering, and it would be a little difficult for them to engineer (in this context) valid and photogenic tests for health and religion. I'd rather see them concentrate on something they're good at, than have them enter a field where they have no real experience.

It would be particularly hard for them to do health care claims in a television-friendly way. Most of the claims MB tests are of the nature of "is it possible for X to happen?" With health, the issue is rarely whether a particular outcome is possible, but whether it's more likely than a placebo. That requires large sample sizes and discussions about statistical significance, and wouldn't make for compelling television.

(Which reminds me of one of my least favorite MB experiments -- the "talking to plants" test. They used exactly one plant for each of the control, "talking nice," "talking mean," and "music" groups. Not exactly a recipe for getting meaningful results.)

 

[senorpogo]

(Which reminds me of one of my least favorite MB experiments -- the "talking to plants" test. They used exactly one plant for each of the control, "talking nice," "talking mean," and "music" groups. Not exactly a recipe for getting meaningful results.)

Yeah, they've done several experiments like that. They fall short on scientific method more often than they probably should. Granted, the show is meant to be entertaining for a broad audience and they have done a lot of cool, good stuff. Still, I'd refrain from giving them perfect marks.

 

[SRW]

20/20 makes people do stupid things. The first time I found myself yelling at a television set was during a segment they did years ago on Vaccinations. The image that stands out was the reporter sitting next to a stack of vanilla folders, (3000) and saying something similar to, these 3000 unexplained death or illnesses have happened after Vaccinations started. Then they mentioned as insignificant the total number of vacations somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Then she pickup on folder and they switched to an emotional story of a family that lost a child to SID.

No mention of the millions who did not die of childhood illnesses, no mention of how many vanilla folders they would have if there were no vaccinations.

At the time I had two children under 5 and we were in the process of getting their shots. This was also the first time I saw Giraldo Rivera<sp> interviewing a building. "if the people in these buildings would talk to us this is what they might say".
I have stayed away form ABC news like a plague, (kinda like the one that will not kill my kids).

 

[grayman]

20/20 makes people do stupid things. The first time I found myself yelling at a television set was during a segment they did years ago on Vaccinations. The image that stands out was the reporter sitting next to a stack of vanilla folders, (3000) and saying something similar to, these 3000 unexplained death or illnesses have happened after Vaccinations started. Then they mentioned as insignificant the total number of vacations somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Then she pickup on folder and they switched to an emotional story of a family that lost a child to SID.

No mention of the millions who did not die of childhood illnesses, no mention of how many vanilla folders they would have if there were no vaccinations.
QUOTE]

Vaniila?

 

[SRW]

QUOTE]

Vaniila?[/quote]

opps manilla (damn you Spilling checker see if i ever use you again)

 

[blutoski]

Be fair. MB's metier is engineering, and it would be a little difficult for them to engineer (in this context) valid and photogenic tests for health and religion. I'd rather see them concentrate on something they're good at, than have them enter a field where they have no real experience.

Well, they've discussed their rationale in interviews, and they confess that that they don't know any more about physics than they do about medicine.

However: they know from one show where they 'busted' a homeopathic remedy for motion sickness, and got more hate mail for that than all previous shows combined, that their ratings would tank if they continued to explore these claims. They also discuss this policy in their interview in Skeptical Inquirer. (or was it Skeptic?)

 

[blutoski]

It would be particularly hard for them to do health care claims in a television-friendly way. Most of the claims MB tests are of the nature of "is it possible for X to happen?" With health, the issue is rarely whether a particular outcome is possible, but whether it's more likely than a placebo. That requires large sample sizes and discussions about statistical significance, and wouldn't make for compelling television.

(Which reminds me of one of my least favorite MB experiments -- the "talking to plants" test. They used exactly one plant for each of the control, "talking nice," "talking mean," and "music" groups. Not exactly a recipe for getting meaningful results.)

Heh. And one episode I thought was suspicious was the one with the pyramid test for an apple. The pyramid apple was obviously better preserved than the control apple.

So, they repeated the experiment until they got the 'correct' results!

OK: one apple?