Nick Bilton writes a tech-related column called Disruptions, but the name might have been changed to Eruptions this week, given the way readers and others reacted.
The column — which takes up the possible health concerns surrounding cellphones and new wearable gadgets like the Apple Watch — was quickly branded as “pseudoscience.” Articles on The Verge, Science Blogs and Slate were highly critical. On Twitter, Xeni Jardin, a tech-culture journalist who, as a cancer survivor, often comments on cancer-related subjects, wrote: “The Bilton article quoting Mercola is an insult to NYTimes’ laudable legacy of tech, science, health and specifically cancer coverage.”
The particular objections are many. They include the column’s use of studies without adequately evaluating their reliability, its reliance on sources whose qualifications are questionable and the alarmist language in the lead paragraphs and original web headline. The headline read, “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” (It never appeared that way in print. And the web headline was changed to “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech.”)
Trey Harris, a New York City reader, labeled the column “scaremongering,” and raised a number of objections. In an email to me, he wrote:
The Style section is an inappropriate place to analyze a topic like cancer risk. Style and technology reporters and editors are not qualified to report what is science and what is quackery (pseudoscience).
Failing to explain true science: The article didn’t mention two important factors in all such possible-cancer-risk studies. Studies like the ones Mr. Bilton’s article relies on are unreliable, and must be repeated many times by different researchers before venturing a conclusion; and, by science’s very nature, it is impossible to ever rule out any cause as definitively not a cancer risk.
Failing to recognize quackery: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” Unlike the sort of radiation we are usually concerned about, like X-rays or nuclear fallout, no mechanism is known to exist whereby cancer can result from non-ionizing radiation like that put out by cellphones. This goes unmentioned.
Many strenuously objected to the reliance on Dr. Joseph Mercola, questioning his research and qualifications on this topic.
I corresponded with Mr. Bilton and the Styles editor, Stuart Emmrich. Mr. Bilton, defending the column and its sources, mentioned other Times articles over the years that have raised questions and concerns on the same subject. On the use of Dr. Mercola, he told me that his contribution was a relatively small part of the column. “He is one view among a dozen studies, articles and reports I cite in the column,” he said. (However, I’ll note that Dr. Mercola is the only person directly quoted in the column.) He said that describing Dr. Mercola as an alternative practitioner should have alerted readers.
Mr. Bilton also wrote to me: “The reality is, we still don’t know definitively the causes of cellphones and cancer, but I can tell you one thing, as a technology enthusiast myself, I approached this piece thinking all the research was bogus. But, as I noted in my column, after doing my own reporting on this topic, I’m no longer going to talk on my cellphone for long periods of time without a headset. And I will likely also keep my soon-to-be-born son away from cellphone use until his brain develops, as erring on the side of caution, until more research is done, seems to me to be the smart and intelligent approach to this issue.”
On the matter of the column’s appearing in Styles, Mr. Emmrich told me that he understood that serious topics such as this might seem jarring next to fashion and trend coverage. However, he said, the section has a “broad mandate” because it covers many aspects of how people live today.
“In this case, because Nick is our technology columnist, with a deep knowledge of the industry,” Mr. Emmrich said he felt the topic was appropriate for him to explore.
Mr. Emmrich told me that, in retrospect, he would have done something differently: “run it by our colleagues in Science, who have been helpful in the past, just to confirm our reporting was on solid ground and perhaps to more directly address, preemptively, the criticism I expected might come.”
Here’s my take: Mr. Bilton’s writing on technology — on which he’s often engaging and informative — doesn’t make him a health or science expert. It is, of course, possible for a non-expert to write effectively on a complicated subject but, when that happens, extra checking and caution is in order. That didn’t happen here.
And although Mr. Bilton is a columnist, with plenty of leeway for expressing opinion, the careful interpretation of facts still matters. That, too, was lacking.
What’s more, the original web headline felt like click bait, although it certainly reflected the top of the column. Toning it down was a smart move — in fact, a necessity. That change happened after Times Science staff members saw the first headline online and objected, Mr. Emmrich told me.
The column clearly needed much more vetting, at least some of which could have been done internally at The Times. The topic itself is a worthy one, and I don’t object to its appearing in Styles; placement isn’t the issue. But sophisticated evaluation of serious research surely is.
Updated, March 20, 3:45 p.m. A lengthy editors’ note was appended to Mr. Bilton’s column on Friday afternoon.