Hook, on-line and stinker: combatting ‘churnalised’ clickbait
12:47
‘Churnalised’ clickbait articles are on the rise – and so is the misrepresentation of scientific research. Something needs to change and fast, but what? With so many news stories online nowadays, it’s vital that science is communicated in a way that is accurate and reliable. Effective science communication agencies, such as Research Features, could provide the answer.
Apparently, you won’t be reading this article by the time you finish this sentence. That’s according to recent scientific research anyway, which has found that human attention span has decreased to as low as eight seconds – which is actually less than a goldfish.
Hook
Couple that with the rise of technology and the internet, and it’s easy to see why clickbait websites – such as Buzzfeed or The Independent Online – have become so popular. Their articles are designed to prey on the reader’s vulnerable side, persuading them to engage with and click on articles typically written using a ‘Top 10’ or a ‘You’ll never guess what!’ type of template.
Each to their own I guess – after all, if you want to know what type of pizza you are or which US state you should live in, who is anyone to judge?
On-line
The main issue with clickbait websites comes through their communication of scientific research. Science is such an important subject but, if communicated inaccurately or ineffectively, its public reputation can become tarnished – which is never a good thing.
Publishing facts without peer reviewed validation could spread the wrong messages to the public. Why make someone believe that red wine can cure cancer, when the research the claim is based on is simply an exaggeration? If anything, that kind of lazy journalism only creates scientific myths that worsen public health in the future.
Just look at the example of Andrew Wakefield. He falsified his research, making outlandish claims that the MMR vaccine caused autism. This was disproved yet, to this day, many people – including a well-known US President – still believe vaccinations are untrustworthy. This wasn’t exactly helped by the media, who obviously jumped on the news without checking the actual research’s validity.
Stinker
Media agencies are becoming more and more hard-pushed to churn articles out, to gain advertising revenue from the web traffic that the public’s ‘clicks’ get them. But, with this constant production, mistakes are inevitably made and, again, facts become published that may not necessarily be true.
But what can you do to combat against it, to ensure that the science you read about on these clickbait websites is actually reliable? Well, without being harsh, you use your brain. If something sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Check the research, check the facts and check where the claims have come from – you’ll usually find that the article isn’t quite as reliable as you first thought.
Or alternatively, steer away from journalistic clickbait websites completely, and use trusted science communication websites instead. These agencies have academically-trained staff to communicate their work, so you can trust that the articles they produce are more dependable than most. Their staff also understand the science they communicate, so they can analogise, or simplify it in ways that make it understandable and engaging to the general public.
Why not have a read for yourself? Check out researchfeatures.com to hear some of the great research that clickbait websites don’t tell you about. Follow Research Features Magazine Reviews on Twitter, like and follow Research Features Magazine Reviews on Facebook and connect with Research Features Magazine Reviews on Linkedin.
0 comments