Support NeoGAF

[Dunki]

Note this is an actual study and Business insider should be a respectable source as well.

The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour.

Main point and reason why I even post this for me is clearly this here

Journalists' brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.

https://www.businessinsider.de/jour...t-a-lower-level-than-average-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

More at the link or the study conclusion as well.

This is something I have seen more and more these days while reading articles. To me this is one of the most important parts of being a journalists. So I guess there was some truth in it to not really trust journalists

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I’m on my way to being a journalist. I drink too much also.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

This is something I have seen more and more these days while reading articles. To me this is one of the most important parts of being a journalists. So I guess there was some truth in it to not really trust journalists

First off attributing any study of 40 anything as proof of something that can apply to thousands-hundreds of thousands of people is faulty logic at best. It's not proof of anything. It's at best an indicator.

The actual study conclusion is a bit more nuanced than the article.

Results indicated that, on average, the journalists who participated were no more physically stressed than the average person. Blood test data, which would have shown high levels of cortisol to indicate stress, was mostly normal – save for two anomalies, one showing high cortisol and the other high testosterone levels.

Anecdotally, a high proportion of the group reported experiencing some stress, but often cited factors other than their job, including family and finances, as being the cause of this. This was supported by heart rate variability data in several instances indicating a higher degree of stress during hours spent at home. The demands of digital were often cited as contributing to feelings of stress at work.

The headline conclusion reached is that journalists are undoubtedly subject to a range of pressures at work and home, but the meaning and purpose they attribute to their work contributes to helping them remain mentally resilient despite this. Nevertheless, there are areas for improvement, including drinking more water and reducing alcohol and caffeine consumption to increase executive functioning and improve recovery during sleep.

The bolded part from the study concludes that while issues exist, none of them demonstrate an observable difference to their work.

 

[Vicetrailia]

In addition to Karnee:

The results showed that journalists' brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, particularly because of dehydration and the tendency of journalists to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.

So no, journalists aren't fake news, but you are Dunki for creating this agenda.

 

[Dunki]

First off attributing any study of 40 anything as proof of something that can apply to thousands-hundreds of thousands of people is faulty logic at best. It's not proof of anything. It's at best an indicator.

The actual study conclusion is a bit more nuanced than the article.



The bolded part from the study concludes that while issues exist, none of them demonstrate an observable difference to their work.

Biases is certainly not a cause of Dehydration. I get that there is a lot of pressure on Journalists but this is also because of this biases they have shown over and over again.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I read through the 12-page study. I would have been embarrassed if I tried to submit this to a scientific journal while I was a graduate student. I understand why it is self-published.

 

[RubxQub]

These results would seem to apply to basically any demanding job. I can tell you that most of the staff at my tech company are heavily caffienated and love drinking as well.

And as mentioned above, a sample size of 40 is a really poor indicator regardless of the study.

...the part the seems weird to me is this:

Low scores for executive functioning indicates less of an ability to regulate emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and think flexibly and creatively. Sleep, nutrition, exercise and mindfulness all drive executive function, and failure to perform these basics can cause avoidable decreases in cognitive performance. Many journalists reported no time for breaks, as well as low sensory integration, which can also negatively impact on cognitive performance.

This just says that "low scores for executive functioning are indicators for the following things" and lists "suppress biases" as one of the symptoms.

As far as I know, formal journalism education spends a good amount of time on the notion of bias, so I'd have to imagine at the very least they're somewhat trained to resist these kinds of things. I know it feels good to be like "Ah ha! This study says that journalists have a hard time suppressing their bias!" as a headline, but in reality the study doesn't at all try and observe bias, it merely comments that a harder time suppressing bias is a common side effect of that particular result of their testing.

If this study was FOCUSED on bias in journalism, than this would be more useful.

I don't know, essentially any study that's only looking at such a small sample size almost immediately gets thrown away by default in my eyes unless the resulting data is stunningly conclusive, and even then it would still create a need to see more data to make hard conclusions from it.

This study basically seems like it says "The 40 journalists we studied are people who drink coffee and alcohol slightly more than average" and that's basically it.

 

[Relativ9]

On the other hand, some of the best journalists in history have been notorious substance abusers and drinkers. Hunter S Thompson and Christopher Hitchens come to mind, though neither lived particularly long lives They weren't the sort of objective analysis "facts only" types of journalists though often letting their emotion seep into their stories. With Hitchens in particular though this proved to be of great value as his moral fiber was unimpeachable and allowed him to dig into a story to a greater level than just reporting on the facts would ever allow.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Biases is certainly not a cause of Dehydration. I get that there is a lot of pressure on Journalists but this is also because of this biases they have shown over and over again.

The study does not prove that. It claims that dehydration might impact the ability to suppress biases. The study comes to no conclusion other than they drink a bit more and don't hydrate enough.

 

[TransientJetlag]

This definitely proves that all journalists are fake news imo. The only truly unbiased source would be someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Sean Hannity. Just cold hard facts.

 

[infinitys_7th]

First off attributing any study of 40 anything as proof of something that can apply to thousands-hundreds of thousands of people is faulty logic at best. It's not proof of anything. It's at best an indicator.

The actual study conclusion is a bit more nuanced than the article.



The bolded part from the study concludes that while issues exist, none of them demonstrate an observable difference to their work.

That's about the same sample size gender studies "research" tend to use whenever they try to push nonsense like this:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6445510

Goose, gander, etc.

 

[BANGS]

So, journalists are exactly like the rest of us?

 

[3rdman]

Note this is an actual study and Business insider should be a respectable source as well.




Main point and reason why I even post this for me is clearly this here



https://www.businessinsider.de/jour...t-a-lower-level-than-average-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

More at the link or the study conclusion as well.

This is something I have seen more and more these days while reading articles. To me this is one of the most important parts of being a journalists. So I guess there was some truth in it to not really trust journalists

Everything wrong with this forum compressed into a single post...Congrats!

 

[Gexxy1]

And here I was thinking they were just blowhards who wanted the general public to swallow their BS.

 

[HStallion]

That's about the same sample size gender studies "research" tend to use whenever they try to push nonsense like this:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6445510

Goose, gander, etc.

And what does this have to with this topic at all?

 

[infinitys_7th]

And what does this have to with this topic at all?

He attacked the sample size, so I gave an example of similarly dubious "research" with a similar sample size that I speculated he would defend because reasons.

 

[BANGS]

And what does this have to with this topic at all?

sample size

 

[HStallion]

He attacked the sample size, so I gave an example of similarly dubious "research" with a similar sample size that I speculated he would defend because reasons.

They were talking about the issue of the sample size of this particular study. Bringing up another totally unrelated study about gender studies doesn't add anything except yes, there are other studies that could do with larger participant pools. The fact it's about gender studies specifically seems like some totally random gotcha moment that has no serious relation to the topic at hand.

 

[Dunki]

They were talking about the issue of the sample size of this particular study. Bringing up another totally unrelated study about gender studies doesn't add anything except yes, there are other studies that could do with larger participant pools. The fact it's about gender studies specifically seems like some totally random gotcha moment that has no serious relation to the topic at hand.

This is normally how you do studies though. I bet this was also his/her reasoning here. There was a time here when these gender studies were taken as 100% fact while other were neglected because of the small sample size.

 

[crisdecuba]

Note this is an actual study and Business insider should be a respectable source as well.




Main point and reason why I even post this for me is clearly this here



https://www.businessinsider.de/jour...t-a-lower-level-than-average-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

More at the link or the study conclusion as well.

This is something I have seen more and more these days while reading articles. To me this is one of the most important parts of being a journalists. So I guess there was some truth in it to not really trust journalists

Your conclusion shows an inability to suppress your bias. You should become a journalist.

In all seriousness, this study doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it.

 

[BunnyBear]

What an incredible piece of nonsense.

 

[Nikodemos]

Wow, what a surprise, people working shit, irregular hours, under constant stress, with bad diets and a fuckawfully irregular lifestyle tend to suffer the negative effects of the before-mentioned factors?

Who knew, right?

 

[Unknown Quantity]

This is normally how you do studies though. I bet this was also his/her reasoning here. There was a time here when these gender studies were taken as 100% fact while other were neglected because of the small sample size.

What about the other study mentioned above, what about the other sample having more/less so you know...
Thread and study potentially interesting to show the hard graft usually associated with top journalism and the negative health effects that can sway perspective.

Fail on everything else.

 

[strange headache]

Unfortunately the study doesn't differentiate between different kinds of journalism. I'm sure the war reporter, who puts his life on the line in order to chronicle complex human conflicts and the lifestyle columnist, who is basically a glorified gossip generator, are not the same.

The vast majority of people who consider themselves 'journalists' these days are nothing more than content monkeys filling the endless sea of digital media platforms with meaningless drivel. Reputable journalists are still very respected, but they are few and far between. Their voices are often drowned by the deafening cacophony produced by those who'd like to tout themselves 'journalists', but are nothing more than information aggregators whose work becomes increasingly meaningless in the digital age of networked knowledge and user generated information platforms.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Haven't gotten to read it yet, but my first thought is how the selection of participants was done. That might itself indicate a bias, in terms of how the selection process was done. What kind of journalists? Are we talking about people with an education or is it just in general "journalists"? How's the age groups? Work percentage? Social background?
I'm always critical of the media, but it would be hypocritical of me to not stay critical of a study that might just reinforce my perspective.

 

[mr2xxx]

Op showing his bias by not including key details.

It is not yet peer reviewed, and the sample size is small, so the results should not be taken necessarily as fact.

 

[LordPezix]

particularly because of dehydration and the tendency of journalists to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.

Sounds like most of America really.