Halloween MMVIII: The Return of Fluff Journalism.....

Halloween is right around the corner and lazy journalists everywhere are starting to take their cuts at the hanging curveballs amply served up by the realm of the supernatural. The laughable "Supernatural Science" section of Howstuffworks.com provides a perfect example of the kind of pseudojournalism that is becoming increasingly common these days in an article by staff writer and University of Georgia journalism degree holder Cristen Conger on the Top 5 Real-Life Haunted Houses. The article follows the common pattern of fluff science reporting to a tee with its lack of actual investigative journalism and appeal to superstition.

In it, Conger reveals that "­Some people might be hesitant to admit that they believe in ghosts. But if you've ever heard a chilling bump in the night when you're home alone, ghosts might not be such a leap of faith." Apparantly Conger subscribes to the notion that there are no unbelievers when things get spooky. A similiar sentiment, assumed to be an unassailable fact of life by a substantial percentage of Americans, that there are no atheists in foxholes, is equally patently false. Far from being the exception to the rule (ever heard of Joe Nickell?), I don't break a sweat when confronted with eerie noises or unexplained visual phenomena.

Conger, while researching the subject of ghosts and hauntings, doesn't seem to have broken a sweat either, likely having simply clicked on the first few links provided by Google. These are almost always void of any skeptical input. But Conger isn't alone in taking such a credulous approach to reporting on ghouls and goblins. Not thinking critically and asking important questions, like are their legitimate contrary opinions on what I'm writing about (or in this case is their near total agreement by the scientific community that what I'm writing about is hokum), is the hallmark of pseudojournalism. Conger actually does list his sources, which consist of just a few unskeptical compendiums of popular haunted dwellings, at the end of the piece.

Conger cites the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP) in the piece, failing to mention that this organization merely uses "science" as a thin facade while it employs a wide range of unproven investigational methods. They make a concerted effort to seperate themselves from other paranormal investigators by pointing out how flawed their research is and how challenging it is to do a proper scientific investigation of ghosts and other entities which according to true skeptics are lacking in both plausibility and legitimate evidence to support their existence. But their approach is far from unique with its blatant use of pseudoscience.

On their website, they point out that the many instruments used in the ghost hunting trade are not always reliable yet they still rely on them to snooker folks who may not know that the all the digital readings of room temperature and electromagnetic fields, and electronic voice phenomena, are examples of the misuse of scientific equipment and paredolia. Members of ASSAP fall into the same trap of circular logic that every ghost hunter eventually does. They use instruments to aid in differentiating true hauntings from frauds, hallucinations and misperceptions, while citing true hauntings as the means of establishing what meaningful anomalous instrument readings are. The entire endeavor is a house of cards built on a shaky foundation of anecdotes and buttressed by meaningless bells and whistles.

Conger addresses readers who may be concerned that their own home has been invaded by spirits and spectres and reveals a list of things to pay attention to provided by the science-based ASSAP. Accordig to these experts, you are at risk of being haunted if you "see apparitions, hear weird sounds, smell odd odors, feel "cold spots" within a room, notice objects that have been moved or observe your pet acting agitated." Having a toddler and a newborn in my house, I can personally attest to having experienced several of these warning signs recently but Conger and ASSAP can keep their digital video cameras and infrared thermometers to themselves. I'll stick to reality and base any concerns on properly performed studies. It's a heck of a lot more interesting, and considerably less likely to waste my time and energy.

Stuff Believers Like: #4 The Local News.....

While watching the local news one evening a few years back, I sat in disbelief as a bubbly young woman excitedly reported on an amazing occurence. Sadly, the story, though covered as if an accurate and newsworthy description of reality, sounded like one of my own Onionesque satirical posts: Local Man's Beard Stumps Scientists or something along those lines. "When area farmer Billy Bob Jenkins* awoke one cold Fall morning, his life was forever changed," I might have written. "He was shocked to find that his once clean-shaven face was partially covered by hair growth in the shape of a cross on his left cheek. He then basked in the glow of the miraculous sign from God and called the local news station to spread the glorious word."

As I inspected the man's stubbled face during the many close-up views provided by the camera operator, and the perfectly shaped cross there upon it, it was abundantly clear that this was no miracle in the supernatural sense of the word, nor was it even an example of pareidolia, the false perception of a meaningful pattern within what is merely random noise. I guess you could say that Occam's was not the only razor applied to this man's face that morning. Unfortunately, like so many similar credulous fluff pieces on the local news, the claim of supernatural influence on the natural world was met without the slightest hint of critical evaluation.

The absence of rational reporting which dominates most forms of mass media, but particularly with smaller local news outlets, is a frequent source of delight and ammunition to the holder of a variety of beliefs. Rarely does a week go by in most locales where there isn't a report lending credence to some form of pseudoscience or supernatural phenomena, misinterpreting the findings of published scientific studies, or inappropriately announcing findings of preliminary studies which haven't yet undergone peer review. I find it difficult to even refer to the majority of what is out there as actual reporting to be honest, for true journalism has standards far higher than what is being produced in most markets.

The offenders out there that able to cause the most damage due to their reach, the CNNs and Fox News type outlets, are failing miserably these days as less qualified journalists are being assigned the science and health beat and as, in my opinion, the seepage of irrational thinking into mainstream consciousness is becoming more torrential. In the world of print media it is even worse secondary to hemorrhaging budgets. It isn't pretty but all hope is not lost. The recent Time Magazine article on the subect of vaccine safety comes to mind as a stellar example of how journalism can be done right when it comes to controversial scientific topics. Unfortunately, until the situation improves consistently, believers will be able to cite news reports as evidence for their particular brand of irrationality.

*Name changed to protect identity