I have mentioned before the tendency of journalists and the
media to try to get and hold our attention with emotionally charged pictures or stories. We regularly see
news about the results of studies that seem surprising, scary, or shocking, but
are usually somewhat meaningless. They challenge our ability to remain calm and think rationally about the
subject. Here is another example.
“A new study finds that people who drink diet sodas or fruit
drinks are more likely to be diagnosed with depression.” The article continues very responsibly to explain
the size and nature of the study and to emphasize that a link does not
necessarily mean that drinking diet sodas causes depression, but the headline -
Drinking diet soda linked to depression – has us hooked. (With sugary soft drinks being blamed for obesity - blame the soda, not the person drinking it - our choices are narrowing.)
Thinking critically about it, we know that correlation is
not the same as causation. "Linked to" isn't the same as "caused by." We may wonder what we are supposed to do with this information – stop drinking diet soda so
to avoid depression or start drinking lots of coffee, which the article tells us may have the
opposite effect? I don’t think it works
that way.
Later in the article they say, “more research is needed.” So what was the point?
Why should we even care about these kinds of studies that
give preliminary findings, or publicize findings before they are presented for
formal review, or rely heavily on self-reporting as opposed to objective
observation? As I pointed out before, we
don’t have the time or energy to be worried about everything, so there is
nothing really useful about such news.
But it does make for catchy headlines.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment