Every week, I see headlines in the mainstream media (as well as the “social” and online media outlets) that say something like “NASA Scientists Baffled at….” or “Scientists Bewildered by…”. It’s annoying and tells me that the writer and/or the headline writer is a) lazy and b) doesn’t have a clue about science or scientists. Good science journalists and their outlets don’t usually do this.

It’s More Like “Headline Writer Baffled”

In a way, I get it. The headlines often reflect a larger societal misunderstanding of the functions of science AND journalism. Back when I was studying journalism (WHILE I was working as a science researcher in a lab), my journalism advisor (who had a background in political “science”) would say things like “why are you interested in that geeky stuff, anyway?”. And, my scientist colleagues had disdainful things to say about the media.

From both points of view, those people thought they had perfectly captured what the other “side” was doing or thinking. I also get how headlines are conceived of, because I used to work at the copy desk at a newspaper. There was often little time to get a headline done before the deadline. The later the hours, the weirder the headline suggestions.

Today, we’re in a 24-hour news cycle, and media demands almost instant information access. But, that’s still no excuse for lazy headlines. When I see such headlines as the ones above, I immediately think “Headline Writer Baffled”. These days, it could also be “Freelance journalist who never studied science but wants to write about it is baffled.”

Headline Rules

Headline guidelines mainly say that your headline should be short, snappy, and entice the reader. Totally realistic and understandable, provided the headliner writer is good. However, in the worse cases, that leads to clickbait crap, such as “Scientists baffled…”. Does the headline reflect reality? Good question. To me, it portrays the reality of the writer: someone who doesn’t understand how science works. To the scientist, it’s a never-ending insult.

Look, scientists are rarely baffled by their findings. They design experiments to find out things. To understand what they’re looking for, they have to have a pretty good idea of the realm of possibilities they might turn up in their investigations. And, most scientists study their subject for many years, way longer than most journalists study theirs. A seasoned journalist (particularly a science writer) isn’t going to use the “baffled” premise. They’re going to understand the importance of a finding that is surprising, given the constraints of the experiment. And, they find good, creative ways to portray the frustrations and excitement of understanding and explaining a new discovery.

Science is Rarely (if ever) “Baffling”

Was I ever baffled by a finding? No. I was surprised or frustrated, but that usually flowed from something I didn’t understand. That meant I had to go back and review what I did know and look for clues there. For example, one of my study areas was comets. We were focused on changes in their plasma tails over time. An astrophotographer sent us an image of a very “weird”-looking plasma tail. At the time, we weren’t sure what was causing the kinky, tangled look of the plasma tail. So, we gathered data about it (time of image, the position of the comet with respect to the Sun and Earth, etc.)

Based on that, we were able to understand what was happening. It turned out that the tail was disconnecting, was disrupted by the solar wind, and the image showed it from a particular point of view from Earth where the tail looked foreshortened. Were we baffled? No, not really. We just had to apply time and effort to get all the information so we could make a good explanation.

Here’s another example of one that I watched unfold when I was in grad school. One of our HST instrument science team members did some observations of a star, wanting to understand its chemical properties. Everything in the universe has chemical properties. You do, I do, the planet does, stars do, galaxies do, and so on.

Knowing the chemical properties tells us something about an object. So, the scientist observed the star using a technique called “spectroscopy”. And, after analyzing the data, they found some chemical elements in the star’s atmosphere that you don’t normally find in stars. That told him (and our team) that there was something interesting going on with that star. The question then became, “What is causing these elements to show up in the star’s atmosphere?”

Was the scientist baffled? No. They were intrigued by all the possibilities, based on what they knew about stellar structure and atmospheric activity. After a lot of analysis, they came up with an explanation based on knowledge of stellar magnetic fields and the star’s rotation rate to explain the chemical “peculiarities” they found. No bafflement. No confusion. Just good, solid science.

What Headline and Article Writers Don’t Get

The idea of “bafflement” about science that shows up in headlines does tell me that someone truly IS baffled. But, it’s not the scientist in this equation. It’s the writer. In particular, it’s a not-very-good writer. Either the science writer didn’t get the full story, or tell the best story, or doesn’t understand the science they’re covering. They probably truly ARE baffled. But, due to deadline pressure, pride, ignorance, or some other combination of factors, they aren’t going to admit that. Except, that they do. In their headlines.

Now, not all science writers do this. In fact, most of us don’t. But, there are those out there who don’t know better. Or maybe they’re just inexperienced in science writing. Or, we are sometimes plagued with clickbait headline writers at the places that pay us to write stories for them. No matter who did the lousy headline, they don’t do science (or their profession) a service.

Clickbait Is the Bane of Science Journalism’s Existence

So, in a clickbait world, what we are left with are baffled writers who just want hits on their stories. Or, in the case of mainstream media… well, it comes down to about the same thing for them, too. In all cases where such headlines get used, I see lazy journalism in service to hits and profitability. Science and the public come out the losers.

Next time you see a headline or story that has scientists “baffled”, “confused”, “puzzled”, or some other clickbait term that says a lot but means little, keep all this in mind. It’s not science or good science writing being served. It’s your eyeballs and gullibility. Look beyond the headlines. And, don’t believe it when lazy writers and their headline creators try to tell you that somebody else is confused or baffled. They’re pointing in the wrong direction.

/rant