Status, career and money play an important role in society more and more. Newspapers, universities and journals feel pressure to publish on a daily basis. However, these domains are supposed to be about providing facts, research and knowledge in a sincere and truthful way. This is supposed to help society, used by governments for making policies in health care, education and economics. We know about bias, we know about politics, we know about finance, but where is the balance between, for example, sincerity, objectivity and selfish, financial, political interests.
In addition, how do we know what research, advice by a professor or bit of news is valid or not? The answer is: content. Because we live in times of fake news, money that provides quick publication in (predatory) journals and universities caring for their name more than for quality, we must judge things on what it actually is. We must not go after our impressions, based on what we 'think' is good, or what is presented as something reliable, coming from a respected source. Yes, when reading an article published in The Lancet or Nature, we know that peer review as been applied and that the impact factor is high, and assumably, the quality is high. Nevertheless, the only way to know whether it actually is high quality, is to look at the research itself. For example, randomisation and objectivity are two criteria to hold. If we look at news from Reuters or The Guardian, we know that this news probably has been fact-checked, and thus will be trustworthy. However, we are ought to keep comparing it and keeping it open to critical thinking. How do we seperate fake articles and papers from real ones? How do we know whether certain data has a background in sponsors from big (commercial) companies? What news is real, unreal, or somewhere in-between? What is the role of conspiracy theories and unrealistic thinkers in our society of today?
Journalism used to be about quality publication. Since the last 20 years or so, it became more about quantity. The amount of published articles, the sensational and 'new' character of the subject and the reads or views (which are the reason for the previously mentioned points) became the standard for the system. Yes, there are very renowned newspapers doing great journalism, taking care of nuance, details and truthfulness, but it is a minority. The same for science and universities.
The importance of journalism is to critically examine society, politicians, science, education, literature and culture. Democracy is even depending on journalism. Science is about providing better conditions and knowledge for humans and nature. Governments rely on this and are making policies on expertise of professors and scientists. Universities are educating our population. Therefore, it is necessary for these domains not to get (more) corrupted by money and status, and for us as a population to stay critical towards what we read and see. There are plenty of journalists, scientists, politicians and professors with the best intentions, to create a better society, but you have to filter out those, who are also competing with corrupted professionals. Assumably, we all want, for example, the best information, the best health care and the best education, not the most sensational, comforting and pretentious. We create a meritocratic and democratic society with high standards together. Tiny, corrupt, seductive bugs eventually can kill the whole system and the general way of thinking. Examples are quick and easy results, social and careerwise status and politics.
We can still trust the previously mentioned domains. There are still self-correcting mechanisms in how they function. Primarily, being selective is an effective way to deal with the topic of all that is written above.
References
Abbasi, K. (2020). Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science. BMJ, 371, m4425.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4425
Dewidar, O., Elmestekawy, N., & Welch, V. (2022). Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271
Resnik, D.B. (2007). Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Research Related to Regulation or Litigation. Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, 7(1).
https://doi.org/10.5840/jpsl200772
Shamoo, A.E., & Resnik, D.B. (2009). Conflicts of Interest and Scientific Objectivity. Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford Academic, 189–214.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368246.003.0010
The Economist (2020, July 16). How objectivity in journalism became a matter of opinion.
TU Delft (2018, April 18). LERU: Implicit bias in academia.
https://www.tudelft.nl/2018/dewis/leru-implicit-bias-in-academia-1
Wien, C. (2006). Defining Objectivity within Journalism An Overview. Nordicom Review, 6.
Add comment
Comments