You start to think about derivatives here: the university's release describing the study is one step removed from the study and the people who did it. The media coverage that follows the university's press release is a second step removed. Then, the short, biased summary of/link to the media coverage that you see on Twitter and Facebook is a third step removed. At every step, the study will get more and more misrepresented.
I am a scientist, and I can confirm that most drive-by media coverage of scientific studies is not coverage of scientific studies! Even university press releases will often mischaracterize a study done by their own faculty (and then mass media bouncing off those releases doesn't have a chance). Two examples that immediately come to mind were:
1. A modeling study from some University of Michigan folks early in COVID that built into their model that masking + social distancing would yield a transmission reduction of 90% (or something like that, I forget the exact number). The university press release said the study demonstrated the importance of masking. THAT IDEA WAS BUILT INTO THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODEL YA PUNKS. But the university press release essentially mischaracterized the study. You think mass media is going to do a better job after that?
2. Of course the now infamous Duke masking study that lacked a control group. That gigantic scientific error didn't appear to give, again, even the university itself any pause in promoting the study as a "masking works" study.
You start to think about derivatives here: the university's release describing the study is one step removed from the study and the people who did it. The media coverage that follows the university's press release is a second step removed. Then, the short, biased summary of/link to the media coverage that you see on Twitter and Facebook is a third step removed. At every step, the study will get more and more misrepresented.
I am a scientist, and I can confirm that most drive-by media coverage of scientific studies is not coverage of scientific studies! Even university press releases will often mischaracterize a study done by their own faculty (and then mass media bouncing off those releases doesn't have a chance). Two examples that immediately come to mind were:
1. A modeling study from some University of Michigan folks early in COVID that built into their model that masking + social distancing would yield a transmission reduction of 90% (or something like that, I forget the exact number). The university press release said the study demonstrated the importance of masking. THAT IDEA WAS BUILT INTO THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODEL YA PUNKS. But the university press release essentially mischaracterized the study. You think mass media is going to do a better job after that?
2. Of course the now infamous Duke masking study that lacked a control group. That gigantic scientific error didn't appear to give, again, even the university itself any pause in promoting the study as a "masking works" study.