Let's complain

Over at Skeptiko, "Number 22" complained about an article in the Express (UK) quoting Sean Carroll's claim that the "laws of physics" forbid post mortem survival:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/se...roll.4160/

Setting aside the merits of the argument (which I think are very limited, as the "laws of physics" famously aren't capable of describing even physical phenomena adequately), what annoys me is that (as far as I can see) this newspaper article, published in 2017, is based on a Scientific American "Guest Blog" post from six years earlier. Scientific American is mentioned in the article, but there is no link to the source and nothing to indicate how old the article was. For some reason, this old article by Sean Carroll seems to be picked up regularly by the British tabloid press, and regurgitated as though it's new. It's misleading to the reader to present old scientific opinions as though they're new.

Publications by British news media are regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have found them quite helpful in the past in dealing with complaints. I think it's worth complaining, because otherwise the seedier sections of the press will carry on putting out whatever nonsense they think they can make money from, regardless of accuracy. I've made a complaint about that Express article. I don't know whether they'll accept it, as there's a time limit of four months for published articles, though they say they may be able to accept complaints within a year if the article is still available online. I thought it was worth trying, anyway.

If anyone sees any other inaccurate reports from UK media outlets, the information about complaints can be found here:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/make-a-complaint/

Over at Skeptiko, "Number 22" complained about an article in the Express (UK) quoting Sean Carroll's claim that the "laws of physics" forbid post mortem survival:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/se...roll.4160/

Setting aside the merits of the argument (which I think are very limited, as the "laws of physics" famously aren't capable of describing even physical phenomena adequately), what annoys me is that (as far as I can see) this newspaper article, published in 2017, is based on a Scientific American "Guest Blog" post from six years earlier. Scientific American is mentioned in the article, but there is no link to the source and nothing to indicate how old the article was. For some reason, this old article by Sean Carroll seems to be picked up regularly by the British tabloid press, and regurgitated as though it's new. It's misleading to the reader to present old scientific opinions as though they're new.

Publications by British news media are regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have found them quite helpful in the past in dealing with complaints. I think it's worth complaining, because otherwise the seedier sections of the press will carry on putting out whatever nonsense they think they can make money from, regardless of accuracy. I've made a complaint about that Express article. I don't know whether they'll accept it, as there's a time limit of four months for published articles, though they say they may be able to accept complaints within a year if the article is still available online. I thought it was worth trying, anyway.

If anyone sees any other inaccurate reports from UK media outlets, the information about complaints can be found here:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/make-a-complaint/

I'm totally in agreement with that. It really winds me up and not just because that statement from Carroll is complete bollocks.

Over at Skeptiko, "Number 22" complained about an article in the Express (UK) quoting Sean Carroll's claim that the "laws of physics" forbid post mortem survival:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/se...roll.4160/

Setting aside the merits of the argument (which I think are very limited, as the "laws of physics" famously aren't capable of describing even physical phenomena adequately), what annoys me is that (as far as I can see) this newspaper article, published in 2017, is based on a Scientific American "Guest Blog" post from six years earlier. Scientific American is mentioned in the article, but there is no link to the source and nothing to indicate how old the article was. For some reason, this old article by Sean Carroll seems to be picked up regularly by the British tabloid press, and regurgitated as though it's new. It's misleading to the reader to present old scientific opinions as though they're new.

Publications by British news media are regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have found them quite helpful in the past in dealing with complaints. I think it's worth complaining, because otherwise the seedier sections of the press will carry on putting out whatever nonsense they think they can make money from, regardless of accuracy. I've made a complaint about that Express article. I don't know whether they'll accept it, as there's a time limit of four months for published articles, though they say they may be able to accept complaints within a year if the article is still available online. I thought it was worth trying, anyway.

I've just heard from IPSO that they have rejected my complaint - though not, as far as they say, for any reason to do with time limits.

I have the right to request a review of the decision, which I'll exercise, if for no other reason than that they've given me no justification for the decision.

I wouldn't be too hopeful of the complaint getting very far though I admire the effort to try. My impression is that there exists an orthodoxy in British officialdom and that the press and their watchdogs all abide within that orthodoxy. The prevailing scientific view is materialistic and mainstream scientists consider evidence for survival as fringe at best and anti-science at worst. The press and media generally conform to that view as can be seen in the materialistic bias in BBC science programming.

So a complaint would likely fall on deaf ears. It would be like complaining to the Vatican that some priest had claimed publicly that the Virgin Birth was a real and true event. 

In some ways, they are only following what they see as the responsible course. After all, they would probably adhere to the orthodoxy when it comes to climate change too - and with good reason: most of the expert opinion confirms climate change. Likewise, most of the expert opinion is with Carroll though we suspect for different reasons. With climate change, a lot of work and resources have been devoted to producing credible evidence. With psi and survival, a metaphysical assumption has become axiomatic so evidence to the contrary is ignored or dismissed.

Kamarling

Thanks, but personally I doubt very much whether it has anything to do with a prevailing materialistic orthodoxy or anything like that. In my experience, these regulatory bodies have a strong inbuilt bias against upholding any complaint, and against taking any action.

What I'm complaining about is the fact that the newspaper article presented in the present tense something someone had written six years previously. I think any reasonable person reading in a newspaper article that "X states" will conclude that X has stated it recently. Obviously the newspaper article is misleading. If IPSO refuses to uphold the complaint, I'm going to try to get a clear statement out of them that either (1) they don't think it's misleading for a newspaper to report in the present tense something that happened years ago or (2) they don't think that newspapers misleading people is something they're able to take action about.

Kamarling

Thanks, but personally I doubt very much whether it has anything to do with a prevailing materialistic orthodoxy or anything like that. In my experience, these regulatory bodies have a strong inbuilt bias against upholding any complaint, and against taking any action.

What I'm complaining about is the fact that the newspaper article presented in the present tense something someone had written six years previously. I think any reasonable person reading in a newspaper article that "X states" will conclude that X has stated it recently. Obviously the newspaper article is misleading. If IPSO refuses to uphold the complaint, I'm going to try to get a clear statement out of them that either (1) they don't think it's misleading for a newspaper to report in the present tense something that happened years ago or (2) they don't think that newspapers misleading people is something they're able to take action about.

Again, I wish you luck but, for whatever reason, I doubt they will take any notice. Even if they do, the damage has been done and that is all the paper cares about. Look what the UK newspapers (particularly The Express) got away with during the Brexit campaign. Outright lies daily.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/i...ccounter=1

Again, I wish you luck but, for whatever reason, I doubt they will take any notice. Even if they do, the damage has been done and that is all the paper cares about. Look what the UK newspapers (particularly The Express) got away with during the Brexit campaign. Outright lies daily.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/i...ccounter=1

Funnily enough, one of those Brexit reports (in the Sun) criticised by IPSO involved a complaint that the headline in 2016 said "Queen Backs Brexit", even though the Queen's alleged opinion had been expressed five years earlier. Unfortunately it seems IPSO didn't rule on the point about the use of the present tense being misleading in itself.