During any prolonged study session, it is a safe bet that most UNC students will take a break to browse social media. Part of this procrastination might involve skimming easily digestible stories with catchy headlines. These are known colloquially as “clickbait,” primarily designed to attract attention and advertising revenue rather than to educate and inform. While clickbait might be entertaining, its oversimplified and sensational style is ill-suited to scientific coverage and should be viewed with skepticism.
Clickbait science commits its first error in the headlines, often beginning with the cringeworthy phrase “Science says,” as if what follows is a proclamation by an infallible council of white coats. In reality, this introduction is often used in stories reporting the findings of a single research group and does not represent a scientific consensus, much less arrival at the truth.
This distinction is significant because when a different group introduces a competing claim, it leads to charges that “scientists can’t make up their minds” and undermines public confidence in science as an institution. In reality, the fringes of scientific knowledge are fraught with controversy. While theories like gravity and evolution have been painstakingly verified, new discoveries can be reinterpreted or even refuted as our understanding of the world gradually increases. In prioritizing hype over substance, clickbait science obscures this process.
It also dramatically overstates the importance of new discoveries in the interest of generating hype. A prime example of this is the failure to differentiate between tentative initial results and well-supported conclusions. For instance, if a research group discovered that a chemical found in cinnamon performs well in laboratory tests on cancerous cells, clickbait science would proclaim “Science says cinnamon fights cancer!”, as if a heaping spoonful of the stuff each morning would set one on the path to immortality.
These articles often feature blatant appeals to emotion by promising good news — “Science says chocolate is healthy!” — or fear-mongering — “Science says chocolate could kill you!” Never mind any discussion of the nuances, such as whether these findings could apply to a living human or how the observed data justify the conclusions drawn.
Qualifications, hesitation and reservations are tiresome and are omitted in the interest of brevity and entertainment value. It has been said that a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. These articles might not lie outright, but by the time any intelligent discussion of the merits of the research begins, readers have moved on.
To be sure, sources of online science journalism exist that are both engaging and responsibly reported. But finding them requires effort on behalf of the reader, and it is understandable that seeking and vetting these sources might be more work than fun. But at the very least, recognizing clickbait science as such and viewing it with skepticism will inoculate readers from the misinformation advanced by entertainment masquerading as scientific journalism.
