It Ain't Necessarily So

The Weekly Standard

An impressive piece of media criticism, more serious-minded and rigorous than sloppy and alarmist reporting on science deserves, and surprisingly readable.

The Maui News

The authors' analysis of what kinds of misreports were made is solid, and their understanding of the pressures on reporters is profound.

Times Literary Supplement

The commentaries on stories are measured and convincing.

Ann Arbor News

This title offers tools to assist in understanding what and how media reports.

Skeptical Inquirer

Recommended reading for all members of the news media audience.

CHOICE

The authors are respected critics of science reporting. The authors commendably ground their ideas in previous scholarship and provide helpful annotations within chapters. Highly recommended for academic journalism collections serving upper-division undergraduates through faculty and for professional and public libraries.

Philadelphia Inquirer

The authors do a fine, well-researched job in shining a light on the problems of the reader should beware.

Idaho Statesman

The book offers a solid critique of the way data-based reports and studies are presented in the media.

Asian Wall Street Journal

It Ain't Necessarily So details how many of the 'facts' that drive sensational claims derive from how numbers are defined.

Philanthropy

Riveting!

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly

Well-written and carefully researched . . . a valuable addition to earlier studies of media and science.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Excellent and devastating new book. . . . Provides a real education on media fraud, which is infinitely more important than media bias.

John D. Graham

Risk and uncertainty plague our daily lives, especially when they drive media headlines. But savvy consumers of news have a new ally with the appearance of this timely and entertaining read that manages to take the process apart and show us the guts of how news is really made.

Michael Barone

David Murray, Joel Schwartz, and Robert Lichter look beneath the surface of today's journalism and find narrative 'templates' that reflect journalists' ideologies and world views—which are often very different from that of readers, listeners, and viewers. In It Ain't Necessarily So, they show how this results in sloppy reporting, misleading impressions, and the propagation of downright lies. This book helps consumers of journalism make sense of the news—even when the journalists have made nonsense of the statistics.

James K. Glassman

One of the greatest dangers to good public policy is bad reporting on science. It abounds. In this important new book, the authors explore why the media has such a tough time getting the story straight on scientific research. Better yet, they expertly demystify the process, showing consumers why they often get an adulterated media product with little relationship to reality.

John Leo

Fake statistics flood the news media these days. This book is the essential antidote.

Sallie Baliunas

Today agenda-driven social pressures can cloud the media's presentation of the complex enterprise of science. With splendid insight, Murray et al. clear the biases in a powerful and timely primer that leaps the chasm of ignorance to show the facts of science.

Inform

I recommend that everyone take time to read this book.

Michael Barone

This book helps consumers of journalism make sense of the news- even when the journalists have made nonsense of the statistics.
—U.S. News & World Report

Publishers Weekly

What should readers make of the news report stating that minority mortgage applications are refused twice as often as those of white applicants, when another one claims that their applications are approved 89% as often? How are we to evaluate the various scientific reports we come across every day? Washington, D.C.-based social scientists Murray, Schwartz and Lichter (Lichter is the co-author of Peepshow and other books) demonstrate how journalists can put a spin on research results to make them conform to preexisting beliefs, and, alternatively, how complicated findings can be easily and innocently misinterpreted. When politicians get hold of the news reports, the qualifiers found in the original research too often disappear as the pols seize upon a potentially troublesome finding and attempt to "do something about" it. Yet, as the authors fairly point out, the fault doesn't always lie with the messenger. Sometimes researchers use proxies instead of direct measurements, using income as a proxy for poverty, for example. And often, seemingly paradoxical results confuse everyone: a decline in the number of cases of a disease can still result in an increase in the percentage of total illnesses if other ailments have declined even more. The authors do a thorough job of pointing out the fallacies and errors that underlie much reporting on science such as widespread reports that male sperm counts have decreased over the decades (a good look at the evidence, they claim, shows the conclusion was based on insufficient figures). Readers from all walks of life will acquire a more critical eye from this thought-provoking examination of how science gets served up for our early-morning reading and postprandial evening news. (Apr.) Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.

Library Journal

The intersection of media culture with scientific research does not often result in a better-informed public, according to Murray and coauthors Joel Schwarz and S. Robert Lichter. In a series of case studies, the three authors affiliated, respectively, with the Statistical Assessment Service, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Center for Media and Public Affairs illustrate what happens to scientific research as it becomes news. Scientists publish the results of their work as the first step in a process that includes dialog and further studies. Journalists seek stories that are exciting, controversial, and novel. All too often the resulting news articles are not good science. Sometimes, stories are reported prematurely, such as the 1989 coverage of nuclear cold fusion. Other times, startling statistics are offered without context, such as reporting the number of abductions of children without explaining the various categories of abduction used by the researchers. After reading this suggestive analysis, readers will come away wondering if it is possible to understand the world around us through the news media. Recommended for aspiring journalists and consumers of news. Judy Solberg, George Washington Univ. Lib., Washington, DC Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.

Booknews

Three men associated with Institutes, Centers, and the like in Washington, DC explore the choices, judgments, arrangements, spinnings, deletions, and framing of the news process as it engages with research-based portraits of the world. They use a series of case studies demonstrating the ambiguity of news, of measurement, and of explanation. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)