After the story first appeared, it was quickly picked up by other publications in Europe and other countries around the world. That’s when friends and colleagues started getting in touch with Dr. Sell. As he saw the inaccurate stories appearing far and wide, he sent a letter to the Times, and contacted other publications to get them to correct their stories. (You can read the BBC’s corrected story here.)
From his letter to the Times:
Journalistic ethics requires, at a minimum, that you remove from this article all references to me, and to the research I and my collaborators have conducted. This article consists almost entirely of empirical claims and quotes about blonde women that Mr. Harlow fabricated, and then attributed to me. Please take the article offline immediately.
Psychology Today, Stinky Journalism, and a contributor to True/Slant have weighed in on the questionable article. Dr. Sell also decided to publish a note on his Web site to try and get the word out:
News Flash! Press gets the data fantastically wrong
The Sunday Times of London recently published a piece claiming that I found a link between blonde hair in women and anger, entitlement and “warlike” behavior. No such research was done, and my colleagues and I believe the claims of the article are false. As can be seen by a search in my original publication (here) the words “blonde” or even “hair” never appear. Nevertheless, the story spread rapidly throughout the blogosphere and the mainstream news…
Given the widespread re-reporting of the erroneous findings related to blondes, Dr. Sell is left to conclude that “there is a lot of interest in blondes in Europe.”
That’s especially true when it comes to the Sunday Times. Back in 2006, it was one of several news outlets fooled by a hoax claiming a WHO study found blondes were on the path to extinction. Here’s the correction that was eventually appended to the story (“Cavegirls were first blondes to have fun”):
The World Health Organisation has asked us to remove an earlier erroneous reference suggesting it had conducted a study which forecast natural blonds were likely to be extinct within 200 years. The WHO issued a formal denial of such a study in 2002.
The paper also recently published an article headlined, “Recession chic: why blondes are having more fun,” and an earlier one, “You silly boys: blondes make men act dumb”.
As of this writing, the paper has not issued a correction. In a statement issued to CJR, the Times said: “There is a difference of opinion between the reporter and the complainant
about their conversation, which has not yet been resolved.” The paper has also rebuffed Dr. Sell’s attempts to place a comment on the story, though the top-rated comment on the piece states that “this article is made up” and provides links to support the assertion.
In response to his letter objecting to the piece, the article’s author and one of his editors asked Dr. Sell to provide evidence that his research has nothing to do with blondes. Yes, the paper is asking the very man whose research it based the article on to defend his work. As if he misunderstood his own data. I guess they subscribe to the notion that the best defense is a good offense.
“How do you prove that you didn’t say something?” Dr. Sell said, noting the other researcher quoted in the article, Catherine Salmon, also expressed dismay with the reporting and her quotes. (They saw each other at a recent conference.)
“I e-mailed the editor to ask what he needed from me, and he said I need to provide evidence to my side of the story,” Dr. Sell said. “… I’m the source and I’m telling you it’s not true. What more evidence do you want?”
Like, totally.
Correction of the Week
This should, of course, be categorized with the recent much hyped rediscovery of the allegedly "scientific" finding from the 1970s of the imminent ice age. In fact, a quick look at google finds that of almost 30,000 articles in 6000 refereed scientific journals, there was not a single mention of an approaching ice age. This did not stop the pop science press--including the BBC News, the London Times, the Christian Scientist Monitor, the Guardian and others--from proclaiming, "in the 1970s scientists announced an ice age is upon us." (so how can any scientific findings about AGW be believed?)
The lesson is obvious.
Now, what about, "bananas are becoming extinct?"
#1 Posted by BostonEddie, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 04:20 PM
botch |bä ch |
verb [ trans. ] informal
carry out (a task) badly or carelessly : the ability to take on any task without botching it | he was in a position to hire people, and he botched that up | [as adj. ] ( botched) a botched attempt to kill them.
• patch or repair (an object or damage) clumsily.
Why does the subheading, and the article itself, suggest that it "appears the Sunday Times either grossly misunderstood his findings, or simply did its best to sex up the story"? Either the scientist, who has published in one of the most prestigious journals in his field, is lying, or the writer has fabricated a quote and falsely attributed something to the research.
#2 Posted by MA, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 12:35 AM
you are in a war right now!
#3 Posted by Tank, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 09:39 AM
it's rather funny that the corrected BBC article, as linked in this article, subtly states in a footnote that dr. Sell made clear "that his research had set out to test the link between temperament and attractiveness, rather than hair colour, for which he said the link was weaker."
why is it so hard for people, especially anonymous people like news organizations, to simply state that they were wrong? fabrication, which as comment #2 mentions is a more likely means by which the original erroneous article came to be, is a different matter of course, but saying you got it wrong is at least somewhat closer to the truth. furthermore, why do they find it hard to mention dr. Sell doesn't refer AT ALL to hair in his article (as suggested by this article - one can't be too careful nowadays)? why 'weaker'? it's just plain infantile.
#4 Posted by JB, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 03:47 PM