O Jornalismo e Comunicação acrescenta mais lenha à lareira do jornalismo objectivo, agora apontando uma opinião sobre a validação científica e o jornalismo.
O texto ("De como a ciência pode ajudar a notícia") termina dizendo que "Jornalismo não é ciência, nem nas ações nem no discurso. Ainda bem, porque, no mínimo das diferenças, o jornalista precisa preservar a capacidade de indignar-se. Mas o jornalismo produziria conteúdos e criaria formas de melhor qualidade se os jornalistas acreditassem nas vantagens de trabalhar com método. E se aprendessem a fazê-lo."
É contraditório: se o jornalismo não é ciência, porquê aplicar as mesmas regras? E a indignação não é científica. Enfim...
Mesmo assim concordo com a aplicação de algumas regras científicas ao trabalho jornalístico, mas como retorquir às questões em que a própria comunidade científica duvida desta forma de validar o seu trabalho? E como é que a comunidade jornalística valida as suas histórias? Pela replicação? "No way, dj"...
Como se refere aqui, "The problem is not that journalists cannot be objective. Under numerous circumstances, they certainly can. The problem lies in how journalists have come to define objectivity.
As a practical matter, most journalism today (with the exception of sports coverage), comes closer to the balance standard. This is often derided as "on the one hand, on the other hand" stories, or as [Victor Cohn] puts it, "he said, she said" stories. [...]
Journalists should learn to think more like scientists. In many ways, they already do.
Journalists (at least some of them) are skeptical, and know that truth is always tentative. They are open to alternative explanations, and know that replication is good. This is most often manifest in documenting stories and corroborating sources. They know that they are more solid ground relying on empirical, testable results rather than tenacity, faith or folklore, although the truth is more relative than absolute.
Journalists also naturally operate on the basis of parsimony, preferring simpler explanations. Scientists too say the best theory explains the most with the least.
Cohn simply explains what statistics teachers try and teach, that there are six basic concepts that apply to all science and all knowledge.
1. There is uncertainty in every study.
2. The stronger the probability of something happening, as measured by statistical significance or a P value, the more likely that cause and effect exist. [...]
3. Power means the likelihood of finding something if it's there, so the greater number of cases or subjects studied, the greater a conclusion's power and probably truth.
4. Bias in science means reaching unreliable conclusions due to spurious associations or failing to consider confounding variables.
5. Variability is always there [...]
6. Then there is a hierarchy of studies, from the least to the most generally believable. [...]
There is really no excuse, then, for journalists to deny the existence of these tools and to continue defining their occupation the same. Why don't we rethink the definition of objectivity and define it more like science?
Mais para a lareira:
The new precision journalism is scientific journalism. [...] It means treating journalism as if it were a science, adopting scientific method, scientific objectivity, and scientific ideals to the entire process of mass communication. If that sounds absurdly pretentious, remember that science itself is restrained about its achievements and its possibilities and has its own sanctions against pretension. [...]
Starting in the 1970s, journalism began moving toward a more scientific stance along two separate paths. The increasing availability of computers made large bodies of data available to journalists in a way that was not possible before. And in the business office, the failure of newspaper circulation to keep up with the growth in number of households made publishers pay more systematic attention to the marketplace and the factors that motivated readers to spend time and money with the publishers' products. The notion that a newspaper is a product and that a reader is a rational creature who makes a choice about whether to pay the cost of using the product became respectable. And so market forces were pushing journalism as a whole, not just a few isolated players in the field, to a more scientific stance.
E, lá porque o fazem, isso significa que têm razão? Dúvidas, só dúvidas.
"It's not enough to have writing ability, good sources, and lots of energy. Reporters and editors are going to need to know something about statistics and software." E tanto mais...
[act.: A ler a contribuição do Ponto Media sobre "How Do Journalists Think"]
