Sir, – In public discourse in general, but particularly in the media, there is a constant friction between the desire to be accurate with one’s reporting, and the impulse to be fair to the “other side” of the debate; to give equal time, or column inches, to those at the fringe.
This can be seen to various degrees, particularly in the United States, in reports on topics such as global warming, vaccination and evolution. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus on these and other issues, there remains a journalistic tic which compels reporters to present both sides as though they were on an equal footing scientifically.
The effect of this style of reporting is that it manufactures a debate that doesn’t exist. There is no significant dissent from the consensus on any of the topics I mentioned above; the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in the relevant fields follow the evidence to the same explanations (technical scientific minutiae notwithstanding).
What do exist are small but vocal, and often well-funded, lobby groups, whose opinion is not endorsed by researchers who are familiar with the literature and the evidence.
Media space for scientific and factual claims should be proportionate to their acceptance in the scientific community. If the evidence is there, it will tend to make its way into the scientific debate by the normal publication and peer-review processes; for every genius renegade researcher, there are a dozen dishonest or disingenuous campaigners. – Yours, etc,
DAVID McGINN,
Mountain Park,
Tallaght,
Dublin 24.