Group items tagged

Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Media Watch is based on the same premise as the ABC show Media Watch. It aims to highlight poor examples of journalism regarding AOD-related issues in the hope that we can assist journalists to report more objectively using science and evidence rather than perpetuating myths, opinions and moral panic. Research has found moral panics in the media can actually be detrimental. Moral panics in the media can actually be detrimental by counter-intuitively leading to increased drug use since it increases the perception that more people are using the drug than actually are. It has also been found to found that moral panics reduce the degree to which some people believe that the drug being reported on is harmful. It also reduces the credibility of AOD information in the media.

Use of mean and median to analyse the paygap at The Guardian group. The gender pay gap at Guardian News & Media is 11.3% - calculated by mean hourly pay - the company has reported as part of the government's compulsory gender pay gap initiative.Across GNM, the median pay difference, which takes the mid-point when all wage rates are lined up from the biggest to smallest - which reduces the impact of one-off outliers - is wider, at 12.1%. The figure for non-editorial is 18.2%, and nearly 9% in editorial.

What happens once misinformation is corrected? Is it effective at all? A major problem for social media platforms resides in the difficulty to reduce the spread of misinformation. In response, measures such as the labeling of false content and related articles have been created to correct users' perceptions and accuracy assessment. Although this may seem a clever initiative coming from social media platforms, helping users to understand which information can be trusted, restrictive measures also raise pivotal questions. What happens to those posts which are false, but do not display any tag flagging their untruthfulness? Will we be able to discern them?

Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation's series on the science of free will.

The Media Has A Probability Problem The media's demand for certainty - and its lack of statistical rigor - is a bad match for our complex world.

Excellent NYT interactive - where do you draw the line on how your data is used by social media companies and smart devices?

Some great quotes in this piece! The language of politics warps our democracy again and again, as in this tax calculation. The media must unpack statistics Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation published a report on funding for health and social care. One figure from the report was repeated across the headlines. For the NHS to stay afloat, it would require "£2,000 in tax from every household". Shocking stuff!If you're sitting at a bar with a group of friends and Bill Gates walks in, the average wealth of everyone in the room makes you all millionaires. But if you try to buy the most expensive bottle of champagne in the place, your debit card will still be declined. The issue to be addressed, and one to which there is no fully correct answer, is how we can put numbers into a context that enables people to make informed choices. Big numbers are hard to conceptualise - most of us have no intuitive understanding of what £56bn even looks like.

Discusses a recent paper and press-release (a short summary circulated to the media by the people involved. In research, this is generally a summary of the paper often published by the university or organisation that has conducted the research). Do you think starting to eat nuts is likely to decrease your risk of heart disease? What other behaviours or characteristics do you think nut-eating might be associated with? Would any of them also be related to health factors?

Where else have you seen risk claims like "x causes 50% increase in health-problem y"? Do you tend to trust these claims? Do you understand what they mean? Would they change your behaviour? "Interpreting health (or any other) risk estimates reported in the media is not straightforward. Even health professionals can get tripped up trying to make sense of these statistics, so it is no wonder the public can easily be confused or misled. Often there is tendency to overreact to risk estimates, so it's worth unpacking what these really mean."

hen the AP United States history students at Aragon High School in San Mateo California, scanned the professionally designed pages of www.minimumwage.com, most concluded that it was a solid, unbiased source of facts and analysis. They noted the menu of research reports, graphics and videos, and the "About" page describing the site as a project of a "nonprofit research organization" called the Employment Policies Institute. But then their teacher, Will Colglazier, demonstrated how a couple more exploratory clicks-critically, beyond the site itself-revealed that the Employment Policies Institute is considered by the Center for Media and Democracy to be a front group created by lobbyists for the restaurant and hotel industries. "I have some bright students, and a lot of them felt chagrined that they weren't able to deduce this," said Colglazier, who videotaped the episode last January. "They got duped."

'Killer facts' are those punchy, memorable, headline-grabbing statistics that make reports special. They cut through the technicalities to fire people up about changing the world. They are picked up and repeated endlessly by the media and politicians. They are known as 'killer' facts because if they are really effective, they 'kill off' the opposition's arguments. The right killer fact can have more impact than the whole of a well-researched report.

Nice discussion of the data around contraception choices. Shortly after Donald Trump was elected president I started noticing an interesting trend on my social media newsfeeds. And no, I'm not talking about the near-constant bickering of people with differing political opinions. I started seeing post after post from friends publicly asking one another about their experiences with different forms of birth control. The motivation for these kinds of conversations centered around the pending rollback of copay-free contraception, but have since been re-kindled every time reproductive rights come up in the political arena. And it's not just talk. Many of these conversations centered around the use of long-term contraceptives like intra-uterine devices or IUDs which can protect against pregnancy for 3 - 12 years. In the months immediately following the 2016 election, AthenaHealth reported a 19% increase in IUD-related doctor's visits and Planned Parenthood reported a 900% increase in patients seeking IUDs. Cait, 27, recently switched to a copper IUD, and said that she made the switch due to convenience and "because now in light of our current administration I'd like to have something that will continue to work and be affordable even if I end up without health insurance."

Nice discussion on privacy, "How much do you value your privacy? Does it bother you what social media companies, governments know about you - your money, your body?"

Interesting article about how different kinds of data (like your social media data) can give insights into health, but don't have the same protections as health data

'It's important to me that I make my own decisions, but I often wonder how much they are actually influenced by cultural and societal norms, by advertising, the media and those around me. We all feel the need to fit in, but does this prevent us from making decisions for ourselves? In short, can I ever be a truly free thinker?' Richard, Yorkshire. While being the lone "captain of your soul" is a reassuring idea, the truth is rather more nuanced. The reality is that we are social beings driven by a profound need to fit in - and as a consequence, we are all hugely influenced by cultural norms.

Q&A episode on misinformation and fake news. What's true, how do we distinguish high quality journalism from populism, should we worry about being in an 'echo-chamber' where we're only exposed to views that agree with us, is mainstream media fake news, etc.

Data aren't dead, contrary to what some pundits stated post-election [2], rather the limitations of data are not always well reported. While pollsters will be reworking their models following the election, what can media journalists do to improve their overall coverage of statistical issues in the future? First, discuss possible statistical biases, such as errors in sampling and polling, and what impact these might have on the results. Second, always provide measures of uncertainty, and root these uncertainties in real-world examples.

Blame the algorithm. That's become the go-to refrain for why your Instagram feed keeps surfacing the same five people or why YouTube is feeding you questionable "up next" video recommendations. But you should blame the algorithm - those ubiquitous instructions that tell computer programs what to do - for more than messing with your social media feed. Algorithms are behind many mundane, but still consequential, decisions in your life. The code often replaces humans, but that doesn't mean the results are foolproof. An algorithm can be just as flawed as their human creators. These are just some of the ways hidden calculations determine what you do and experience.

Aleks Krotoski explores why science is being drowned out by Snake Oil online, and how the balance can be shifted to keep desperate people from being exploited. But despite there being more scientific information online than ever, in the modern day the power of the internet has completely flipped. Verified science and medicine are crowded out by a plethora of misinformation and snake oil salesmen. From the relatively harmless quackery such as infrared light treatments or 'wellness' focused diets, to conspiracy theories around vaccinations that are influencing political policy, and have resulted in outbreaks of dangerous, preventable diseases across the world - what is happening online is having a tangible impact across the globe. Aleks Krotoski explores how the infrastructure of the internet allows medical misinformation to thrive, finds out how people can be drawn into communities centred around medical misinformation and conspiracy theory, and how both scientists and every day internet users can redress the balance online.

Nearly every ad you see online is tailored just for you. These digital ads are powered by vast, hidden datasets that allow advertisers to make eerily accurate guesses about who you are, where you've been, how you feel and what you might do next. While targeted ads may be familiar by now, how they work - and the power they have - often seems invisible. We decided to lift the veil on this part of the internet economy, so we bought some ad space. We picked 16 categories (like registered Democrats or people trying to lose weight) and targeted ads at people in them. But instead of trying to sell cars or prescription drugs, we used the ads to reveal the invisible information itself.