Tracker reader Matt Jacob sent me an interesting tip on a Fox News story that gave him some reason for concern. The story, Could Your Water Be Unsafe to Drink, quotes someone named Michael Cervin, identified as a “water expert”. Cervin tells readers that their drinking water might be dangerously contaminated with fluoride and various other “man-made toxins”.
Jacob is director of communcations and outreach for the Children’s Dental Heath Project, by the way.
The story identifies Cervin as a “water expert”, adding no more details. This is not informative. That’s not to say that people without fancy degrees don’t deserve a voice, but they need to be properly identified.
There are two problems with the way this story uses Cervin as a source and both are serious and easily avoidable. The first problem here is lack of disclosure. When describing a source, it’s important to think of the details that would be relevant to the reader. Is he a professor of chemistry, biology, or environmental science? Does he work for a private company and if so, what does the company do? Has he done research in this area? Or written a review article?
Or perhaps the source is a journalist who has written a book on the subject. That’s okay too, but it needs to be disclosed along with potential conflicts of interest.
The second problem with this Fox News story is more subtle. The story hinges entirely on what’s known as argument from authority. This rhetorical fallacy represents very bad practice for journalists. As science writers we should ask sources to back up claims, statements or professional opinions with logic and evidence. We shouldn’t assume something is true because a “water expert” says it’s true. We shouldn’t expect readers to make that assumption either.
Here’s what Cervin is quoted saying:
“My biggest concerns are pharmaceuticals and fluoride,” water expert Michael Cervin told FoxNews.com. “Sure, arsenic, lead, uranium and mercury all sound bad, but they are far less worrisome than man-made toxins.”
You might spot a couple of errors in this quote. First, fluoride can occur naturally in drinking water. Secondly, the word “toxin” is used incorrectly. This story is an extreme case, but that makes it a good illustration of the pitfalls of argument from authority. There’s no evidence or logic to back up the claim. It doesn’t even have internal logic. Why is fluoride classified as a “man-made toxin” but not mercury?
A claim of this sort demands an explanation. Otherwise it doesn’t say much of anything and could mislead readers.
There are other problems with this story. The reporter implies with a link that there’s some legitimate study backing up a claim about adverse health effects:
Recent research has revealed that over time, humans can have adverse health effects from drinking water contaminated with tiny amounts of pharmaceuticals. Lab research revealed that small amounts of medication affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells.
I clicked through the link to find an AP story on the extent of pharmaceutical contamination in water, but I found no studies revealing adverse health effects from drinking water thusly contaminated. The link here is misleading. Such linking negligence is a common problem in science stories. A story should be cohesive without the links. And a link should do what you imply it’s going to do. Otherwise there’s a breach of trust with the readers.
Leave a Reply