UTS-AEI

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.

BBC guidelines on reporting statistics - excellent resource for AEI! http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/ReportingStatistics.pdf The BBC "accepts recommendations [...] to improve statistical training for BBC journalists and to ensure that journalists are better placed to challenge statistical claims made by people in public office...." It also has "plans to create a 'hub' for data journalism, recruit a new head of statistics and develop guidance based on 'guidelines from, for example, the Royal Statistical Society and others'."

How do we know what we don't know? How do some people use ignorance, or claim ignorance, to mislead (e.g., by claiming that we are ignorant of the causes of climate change)? How do we navigate claims when two sides are in direct opposition? Radio national discuss the study of ignorance, and how it relates to evidence and arguments

Analysis of the day's news in an engaging & entertaining way. Host John Barron is joined by a panel of journalists, political & social commentators for a lively, thought-provoking discussion. #TheDrum This week includes discussion of vaccinations and the lock out laws - a great episode for aei

Journalists Need to Do the Math Numbers still make many watchdogs whimper

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.

Great article discussing experts, their role in democracy, and some of the problems facing expertise. "Part of the problem is that some people think they're experts when in fact they're not. We've all been trapped at a party where one of the least informed people in the room holds court, confidently lecturing the other guests with a cascade of banalities and misinformation. This sort of experience isn't just in your imagination. It's real, and it's called "the Dunning-Kruger effect," after the research psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The essence of the effect is that the less skilled or competent you are, the more confident you are that you're actually very good at what you do. The psychologists' central finding: "Not only do [such people] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it." We are moving toward a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople."

Interesting to see such a fact check from a government agency. In recent times, simplistic and occasionally completely inaccurate information about Sweden and Swedish migration policy has been disseminated. Here, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs looks at some of the most common claims.

Interesting discussion of how we perceive risk, and the risks of everyday activities! So let's answer the first question: how likely is a fatal shark attack for an Australian? To get a crude estimate of this, averaged across the whole population, you would divide the number of people who have died due to a shark attack each year (on average three to four each year based on recent data) by the population of Australia (approximately 24 million). This yields a risk of approximately one in eight million per year, which is thankfully very low. Does this assuage your fear? If not, the reason is probably that the imagery of a shark attack is so terrifying. Any unusual and dramatic event has a huge impact on our psyche and this distorts our perception. Also, it's not that easy for us to interpret what a risk expressed as a relative frequency truly means.

Read the comments alongside the article here - interesting speculation and use of evidence. initiatives will not turn the affordability problem around while tax settings continue to support existing homeowners and investors at the expense of first time buyers and renters. Moreover, apart from a brief interruption 2008-2012, the Commonwealth has been steadily winding back its explicit housing role for more than 20 years. The post of housing minister was deleted in 2013, and just last month Government senators dismissed calls for renewed Commonwealth housing policy leadership recommended by the Senate's extensive (2013-2015) Affordable Housing Inquiry. This complacency cannot go unchallenged.

A psychologist compared online reviews of three medical products with results from clinical trials, and found the reviews are skewed towards the positive. The author of the study, Dr Micheál de Barra, wanted to look into whether people who have had good outcomes from treatments are more likely to go online and give positive reviews than people who have had average or poor outcomes. As such, the product reviews provided by online retailers may be distorted. The author looked at Amazon.com - the US version of the site - and analysed two cholesterol-reducing products and one weight loss treatment. In general, he found the extent of cholesterol reduction or weight loss reported by online reviewers was substantially greater than that demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, a more reliable source of evidence on effectiveness.

There's now a vast network of factcheck units around the world, operating in myriad different languages. However, none have a process quite like ours at The Conversation. We have created an animated 72-second explainer of exactly how our FactCheck process works. It explains how we build in extra checks and balances, such as a blind peer review by a second academic expert and additional checking processes and editorial oversight. We hope you'll share it with others who care about reliable information.

News stories regarding the latest in the world of medicine are often popular. After all, most people are interested in their own health and that of their family and friends. But sometimes reports can be confusing. For example, one minute coffee seems good for you, and the next it's bad for your health. And remember when 150 health experts from around the world called for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games to be cancelled or postponed because of the Zika virus? This call was swiftly opposed by both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sometimes these contradictions reflect differences of opinion in the scientific community, and different approaches to research. These are a normal part of the scientific process. But in other instances, health news misinforms because of the way some journalists interpret and report research findings.

Good example of a contentious issue. In an Australian study published today, we show that if the government were to combine taxes and subsidies on a range of foods and beverages, it could substantially improve the health of Australians and potentially free up billions in health care spending.

Dismissing people's worries as baseless, whether that's about the safety of mobile phones or fluoridated drinking water, is one of the least effective ways of communicating public health risks. Yet it is common for people to "reassure" like this, both at home and in professional roles as experts, officials or corporate managers. 1. Hose down your own outrage first 2. Respect people's fears 3. Build trust 4. Don't panic about panic 5. Your actions communicate more than your words 6. Play the long game

What's the most efficient way to communicate a large amount to a reader? We ran an experiment to find out. The results show that we must give up with senseless "football fields" comparisons and focus on finding out if a number matters or not.

Over recent years, data has become an indispensable source for journalists and news organisations, providing excellent material for investigative work as well as storytelling. This has led to the emergence of data journalism, which, broadly speaking, uses information science and analytical techniques in conjunction with journalistic workflows to produce compelling stories rooted in data. Despite the relative maturity of data journalism and the growing application of data in editorial workflows, there is still a lot to learn about the systematic, seamless and effective integration of data and computational tools in newsrooms. It is time time for a holistic assessment of this emerging field by looking deeply into the ways newsrooms across the world have adopted data in their day-to-day workflows, the formation of their data teams, their best practices for producing high quality data driven investigative work, their success and failure stories, and emerging training requirements.

Interesting perspective on communicating evidence. With controversy about science communication, facts and alternative facts hitting the headlines recently, I've been having a number of conversations with colleagues from all over the world about why science seems to be losing in the current war on reason. This isn't in the usual fringe battle fronts like creationism or flat-Earthers. It's on topics deep behind our lines, in areas like whether climate change exists or not, how many people were present at a given time at a given place and whether one man with a questionable grasp on reality should be the only source people get their news from.

The Sun is crossing the line that divides the reporting of conspiracy theories and the promotion of them. As the piece in question shows, it's certainly not in the business of debunking them. As a news article, it represents the sloppiest of standards. In its willingness to degrade the credibility of science in an attempt to induce profitable hysteria, it is lamentable.

The eBook contains 16 short stories about brilliant Australian research data projects that have led to real-life impacts for Australia and beyond. It is intentionally very punchy and image-led. The stories were collected during ANDS' #dataimpact campaign which ran through 2016.