| Why the young get a bad press | Ally Fogg The problem extends beyond grumpy newspaper editors – it seems our psychology demands bad news about youthHere's a sentence you won't read every day: "The vast majority of young people in London are a real credit to their local communities." These are the words of Richard Taylor, father of murdered 10-year-old Damilola Taylor. He was seconded by Olympic medallist Natasha Danvers, as they jointly launched the Pride of London awards in Damilola's name. "London has got a bad rap for youth crime," Danvers said. "But we should do a lot more to highlight all the good things young people here are doing because some of them are putting us adults to shame with what they are achieving."I wholeheartedly agree, and so does the evidence. This week a report from the Jack Petchey Foundation painted an unfamiliar picture: 75% of young people regularly volunteer to help others, and most have values far removed from the fame-and-fortune obsession normally attributed to the X-Factor generation.You're unlikely to have read about these remarks or findings in any newspaper, however. According to Google, not a single national has reported either story. With perfect timing, one of the reasons for this wall of silence may have been revealed by an intriguing new psychological study.Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick of Ohio State University gave 276 volunteers an online magazine to browse. She found that older people preferred to read negative news about young people, rather than positive news. What's more, those older readers who choose to read negative stories about young individuals receive a small boost to their self-esteem as a result. Younger readers, in contrast, prefer not to read about older people at all.The study was designed to test social identity construction theories, and the author believes it demonstrates that we use media to "enhance our social identities". Jargon-busted, she seems to be suggesting that in a youth-obsessed world, older people revel in a moment of smug satisfaction whenever they are reminded of the failings of youth. You might think the theory sounds speculative, and I might tend to agree, but the main finding certainly rings true.We gravitate towards information that confirms our opinions, and tend to avoid that which will undermine or challenge us. It is just one of the many examples of cognitive biases at play in decision-making and judgment. Having our prejudices confirmed makes us feel better about ourselves, that is why we get the gleeful urge to say "I told you so". This study may be most revealing because it does not demonstrate a general schadenfreude, but a one-directional, specific effect that should give us pause to think about the media's coverage of young people.Newspaper editors generally know who their customers are and what they want to read, and this research supports the argument that the media tend to over-report bad news about young people, and under-report the good.Few would argue that modern youngsters get more bad press than any generation in history. The debate is about whether or not that bad press is deserved, and those arguments have been well rehearsed. With my journalist's cap on, I understand why sensational stories sell – if it bleeds, it leads. One horrific murder is more newsworthy than a million everyday good deeds. Yes, some young people have real problems, and some of them cause real problems. When one in four adults say they will cross the road to avoid young people, something has gone badly awry.Of course there is little point calling on the British press to exercise restraint. As a package they are as self-righteous, stubborn and belligerent as any roomful of teenagers. It falls to us as readers to bear in mind that in this context, as in so many others, we may be manipulated in our understanding of the world, not just by mendacious or vindictive media reports, but by our own inescapable psychology.Young peoplePsychologyAlly Foggguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Aussies unlikely to embrace Frankenfish: expert An Australian aquaculture specialist says fish farmers here are unlikely to embrace a new genetically modified (GM) salmon that is up for approval in the United States. abc.net.au |
Mozzie influx plagues Darwin businesses The Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce says outdoor businesses could be losing up to 15 per cent of their trade because of an influx of mosquitos. abc.net.au |
Scientists lobby parliament to halt cuts Researchers fear science has been branded an expense instead of an investment in the future, says Dr Hilary LeeversIt's rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding to meet their MPs. It's rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.But that's exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby their MPs about the importance of science funding.Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and Pembrokeshire, to do so.One slight hiccup was that Vince Cable couldn't make it – he was in the chamber of the Commons making a statement on the Browne review and student finance. But more than 20 MPs came to listen to their constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.The lobby was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) as part of the Science is Vital campaign – to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK's research funding, and to drive home core messages about what such cuts would mean.Bluntly, there are two ways we can get rid of the deficit: cutting spending, or building growth. CaSE is worried that, due to an inexplicable misunderstanding, the Treasury has put investment in science and engineering in the wrong pile. Money spent on science and engineering is an investment for the future, with a historically proven high rate of return, rather than a "spend" that should be up for cuts. Cuts to science and engineering would be the ultimate false economy.The lobby complements the raw mass of nearly 35,000 signatures on the Science is Vital petition, and the crowd of more than 2,000 people who attended the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury last Saturday.The petition has attracted high profile signatures from the science and engineering community, including the current and future presidents of the Royal Society, university vice-chancellors, industry leaders and high profile figures like Professor Brian Cox.But it is perhaps the people who are not scientists and engineers that make the petition more powerful – these include priests and police officers, musicians and artists, doctors and nurses. It also includes many who are looking to science for an answer, like the sufferers of motor neurone disease or cancer, and those who care for them or have been bereaved.The need to support and capitalise upon the UK's strength in science and engineering should not be politically divisive, not least because of their ability to drive economic growth.Indeed, the lobby, petition and a corresponding parliamentary early day motion that MPs can sign to show their support (66 have already done so), have all secured cross-party backing.And there was a good representation of MPs across the political spectrum at the lobby yesterday. Three MPs hosted the event: Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat) and David Morris (Conservative) who spoke at the lobby, and Chi Onwurah (Labour), who arrived just after being elected to Labour's shadow team for Business, Innovation and Skills.Dr Jenny Rohn, spokesperson for Science is Vital, and Imran Khan, director of Campaign for Science & Engineering, both spoke about the importance of securing science and engineering for the UK's future prosperity, and Professor Colin Blakemore made an impassioned call for a reinvigoration of our support for research.Professor Adrian Smith, the director general for Science and Research and one of the most important civil servants for science and engineering, attended the lobby and read out a statement from Cable conveying his and David Willetts's views.Cable said his colleagues across Whitehall and the Treasury valued the productivity and efficiency of UK research and the success of its universities. But there was a worrying inconsistency between rationale and policy: "It is not possible to predict the benefits of specific pieces of research in advance, or to anticipate the growth sectors of the future in which to invest the marginal pound. However, we will have no choice but to prioritise even more than we do now in what is a fiercely competitive environment for funding."He warned that "not every academic, department or institution can necessarily continue to expect public research funding". He ended: "Science, research and innovation are vital to this country's future growth, and we must plan a future together that makes the most of the UK's competitive advantages in these financially difficult times."Both Smith and Huppert said they had been asked to report the lobby to Cable. We are confident that the huge number of people who came into the heart of our parliamentary democracy to emphasise why they think science is vital means the message will get through to Cable, and from him to the cabinet negotiations.If you missed the lobby, there is still time to make your views known to your MPs – write to them and try to meet them in parliament or their local surgeries – it is their responsibility to hear your views. It is vitally important that MPs understand the essential role that science and engineering need to play in building the UK's future prosperity. That's true not only in advance of the publication of the comprehensive spending review's publication on 20 October, but is also critical for the battles we will keep having to fight for science and engineering in the future.Hilary Leevers is assistant director of the Campaign for Science and EngineeringScience policySpending review 2010Tax and spendingguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Humans 'got to Asia much earlier' Our ancestors got out of Africa and spread all the way to East Asia much earlier than believed, say scientists. bbc.co.uk |