The UK's Daily Mail reporting is shoddy at best and their content can be malicious. They make basic factual errors and aren't keen to correct mistakes. That is probably a given and I'm pretty used to the baseline level of distaste I have towards them. However, today I got much more annoyed that usual when they heavily implied that two astronomers were invited onto the BBC's Newsnight (a 10.30pm news programme) to talk about the recent BICEP2 cosmology results because of their gender and/or nationality.

The Daily Mail opinion piece specifically mentions the genders of Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock and Dr Hiranya Peiris. It contrasts them to the genders and nationalities that the writer assumed for the BICEP2 team. Why do this? What relevance do the gender and nationality (or race) have to do with their ability to talk on the subject? The Daily Mail piece doesn't mention the gender or nationalities of the three other astronomers that were on the Newsnight BICEP2 item. The expertise or presence of those astronomers wasn't questioned based on their genders or nationalities. In fact, they weren't mentioned in the Daily Mail piece at all. By omitting to mention the three male contributors, it left readers with the impression that men were somehow discriminated against. This fits the distorted reality of the Daily Mail (and a false but popular narrative that men are being oppressed) who clearly want to make a political point against the Newsnight Editor. The implication that the women were only there because they were women is demonstrably false (see below). The implication that only women were on this piece, is also false.

Let's get some things straight. It is OK to ask if people are qualified to talk about a complex topic. It is not OK to only challenge the scientific qualifications of people of one gender, of one race, or any other irrelevant physical characteristic. That is discrimination however you dress it up.

For the record, Dr Aderin-Pocock is an astronomer and space technology engineer who has worked on Gemini/JWST and co-presents the BBC's Sky At Night. Dr Peiris is a cosmologist who has worked on the two big cosmology space missions of this millennium; WMAP and Planck. She has worked on Herschel-SPIRE. She is a provisional member of the Dark Energy Survey. She is PI on large research grants. She has had a Hubble Postdoctoral Fellowship, an STFC Advanced Fellowship, and won a bunch of prizes. If that doesn't make her qualified to comment about her own area of expertise on a general news program, what does exactly? Both are more than qualified to be on Newsnight talking about astronomy/cosmology.

There is an excellent open letter from the Vice-Provost for Research at UCL to the Editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre which I saw via a rightly outraged Chris Lintott. Kudos to UCL for defending their research staff against discriminatory pot shots from newspaper commentators.

I'd write to the Press Complaint's Commission but it looks as though the Editor of the Daily Mail is the Chair of the PCC Code Committee so the chances of him enforcing something against himself seem a little slim.

Update 2014/03/21: How wrong could one short article be? As well as the things I mention above, I should have also taken issue with the Daily Mail claiming that the BICEP2 team were "(white, male) American". Here is a picture of some of the BICEP2 team. They are clearly not all men and white. I even know two of the team based at Cardiff University (in Wales). Finally, the Daily Mail actually quoted Dr Peiris in an article a few days before but "Ephraim Hardcastle" (alter ego of Peter MacKay) didn't use that to claim bias at the Daily Mail. So the evidence points to lies and racist statements for political point scoring.

Posted in astro blog by Stuart on Thursday 20th Mar 2014 (16:40 GMT) | 5 Comments | Permalink

Comments: Expertise

I've come a bit late to this blog post, Stuart, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate it.

Just, YES! To everything that you wrote.


Posted by Margarita on Saturday 05th Apr 2014 (09:14 UTC)

Implied is spelled implied, not implyed.

Posted by Terry Kalman on Friday 11th Apr 2014 (20:40 UTC)

I've heard similar indignation leveled at the Daily Mail before, and rightly so. I'm surprised they even wrote an article about something of this caliber, seems a little out of their league. Bravo for calling them out on it.

Posted by Sarah Jaudon on Saturday 26th Jul 2014 (22:53 UTC)

gravatarTerry, you are quite correct. I have corrected it. Sorry for the delay.

Posted by Stuart on Wednesday 27th Aug 2014 (17:02 UTC)

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in writing this site. Iâ™m hoping the same high-grade blog post from you in the upcoming also. Actually your creative writing skills has encouraged me to get my own website now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings fast. Your write up is a great example of it.

Posted by jessicacain126 on Wednesday 10th Dec 2014 (11:28 UTC)


Don't provide an email/URL unless really necessary as your comment may get caught in the spam filter. No URLs get turned into links so don't bother. The ground rules for commenting are:
  1. No profanity or personal attacks please. Keep it clean.
  2. Restrict comments to subjects relevant to the post.
  3. Don't mention Pluto. If you do it'll be replaced by Goofy.
  4. No spam i.e. anything commercial unrelated to astronomy.
  5. If you think you've discovered a Theory of Everything, a replacement to Relativity, or something similar then please publish it in a journal rather than in my comments.
Comments against the spirit of these ground rules may be removed.

* required fields