| Table 4: EVALUATIONS OF MEDIA'S REPORTING* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEAN |
POOR |
WELL |
DK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Diverse views, balance |
1.7 |
90% |
8% |
2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Explain risk, benefit
tradeoff |
1.5 |
95% |
3% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Explain dose makes the
poison |
1.4 |
96% |
3% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distinguish
correlate/cause |
1.4 |
96% |
3% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distinguish
absolute/relative risk |
1.4 |
97% |
2% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Distinguish good/bad
studies |
1.3 |
97% |
2% |
1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Explain odds/ratios |
1.3 |
96% |
2% |
2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *1-4 scale
where 1= not at all well and 4= very well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Table 5:
EVALUATIONS OF WEIGHT MEDIA ASSIGNS TO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEAN |
TOO LITTLE |
RIGHT |
TOO MUCH |
DK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Individual studies
relative to overal evidence |
4.1 |
14% |
6% |
74% |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Individual scientists
relative to scientific community |
4.0 |
12% |
9% |
73% |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Studies by enviro. group
scientists |
4.0 |
10% |
13% |
68% |
9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Studies by government
scientists |
3.0 |
28% |
36% |
27% |
9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Studies by private
sector scientists |
2.5 |
48% |
21% |
18% |
14% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *1-5 scale
where 1= too little, 3= appropriate, 5= too much |
|
|
|
|
|
|