Why Everyone Freaked Out About That New York Times Smartwatch Column

​Yesterday, New York Times Columnist — neé technology reporter — Nick Bilton published a column. Originally titled "Could Wearable Computers Be As Harmful As Cigarettes"¹ but later changed to "The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech," the column earnestly points to the rising interest in smartwatches and fitness trackers and wonders if technology's relentless march might come at a cost of our own health.  

Bilton starts off innocently enough:

We have long suspected that cellphones, which give off low levels of radiation, could lead to brain tumors, cancer, disturbed blood rhythms and other health problems if held too close to the body for extended periods.

Yet here we are in 2015, with companies like Apple and Samsung encouraging us to buy gadgets that we should attach to our bodies all day long.

It is not clear who the "we" in that first paragraph is, yet, these two passages do a good enough job establishing why Bilton sat down to write²: man creates thing, thing becomes extremely popular, but is thing actually bad for us? It's a tried-and-true formula — even if the answer is of the dull "nothing-to-see-here" variety the Fourth Estate can rest easy knowing that they did their job.

It's a very sensible column! Until the wheels start to fall off:

While there is no definitive research on the health effects of wearable computers (the Apple Watch isn't even on store shelves yet), we can hypothesize a bit from existing research on cellphone radiation.

Well, it doesn't seem fair to draw conclusions about smartwatches from studies on cell phones…

But what does all this research tell the Apple faithful who want to rush out and buy an Apple Watch, or the Google and Windows fanatics who are eager to own an alternative smartwatch?

Dr. Joseph Mercola, a physician who focuses on alternative medicine and has written extensively about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on the human body, said that as long as a wearable does not have a 3G connection built into it, the harmful effects are minimal, if any.

Oh no. Dr. Joseph Mercola is a bad source, double bad if he is the expert in your earnest look into the health effects of wearables, and triple bad if you're using him to back up your claim that Wearables Are Bad. Take a quick trip over to his website and you can watch 30-minute diatribes about how vaccines are bad and fluoride damages your brain.

Given Bilton's status — columnist for the New York Times style section, author of New York Times Bestseller Hatching Twitter and white male tech journalist — it was inevitable (and justifiable!) that just about every outlet sought to rake him over the Hot Take Coals. 

Gawker, as they are wont to do, took first blood:

It boggles the mind that Bilton and his editors saw it appropriate to quote Mercola as scientific source in an article about wearable tech and cancer. Sure, it's the Styles section, so standards might be a little loose, like the wide-leg pants that are so fashionable for fall.

— Why Is the Times Quoting This Quack About the Danger of AppleWatches? (Gawker)

Boggles the mind indeed! Almost makes you wonder if a draft of Bilton's piece ever graced styles section editor Stuart Emmrich's desk. Or, if it did, did he (or anyone at the Times) think to Google the name of Bilton's only source? Only time will tell!³

Next up on the Bilton Pain Train is Popular Science, wielding actual reporting to tear him asunder:

Geoffrey Kabat, a professor of epidemiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said that Bilton appeared to be carefully cherry-picking studies that showed what he wanted to. "What struck me about this article was that Bilton went to exactly the worst of the studies," he says. "If you read the best overviews by the most competent people, you'd come away saying that there's no consistent signal that cell phones are causing brain cancer."

— No, Wearable Electronics Are Not Like Cigarettes (Popular Science)

Wonderful! Not only did Bilton cite a known quack, but also picked studies that only strengthened his column. PopSci goes on to point out that most wearables do not have a 3G or 4G connection, thus rendering all of Bilton's carefully cherry-picked research useless.

Batting third is The Verge, dusting up Bilton by calling the research he cited into question:

But what about the actual science? Bilton's strongest evidence comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which announced in 2011 that it considered cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." Bilton introduces the IARC announcement as "the most definitive and arguably unbiased results in this area." This is somewhat misleading! To start with, it's not really a scientific result — the IARC just surveyed the available literature and decided it didn't rule out the possibility of carcinogenic effects.

— The New York Times' Smartwatch Cancer Article Is Bad, And They Should Feel Bad (The Verge)

Love that meme-inspired headline! Internet culture is coming for you Nick Bilton. But let's tally up: One of two sources used is a well-established medical pariah, there is a clear bias in the research cited, and the most "credible" study Bilton points to is suspect at best. After three rounds, it's not looking good for Twitter's chief historian.

But we're not done here. No media kerfuffle would be complete without Slate jumping in the ring. After hitting all the same points mentioned above, in the second to last paragraph they climb the ladder and deliver a Swanton Bomb:

One more note: The very first paragraph of Bilton's article recalls when doctors promoted cigarettes in the past. That is a classic pseudoscience technique: poisoning the well against science right away, trying to foment distrust of doctors and medicine. That's not just bad writing; it's downright irresponsible.

— Fear Mongering in the NYT: Does Wearable Tech Cause Cancer? (Slate)

BAH GAWD KING, THAT MAN HAS A FAMILY.⁴ Bilton's lazy writing and lackluster reporting are so egregious that in the eyes of Phil Plait, he's guilting of peddling distrust of science — the cardinal sin of science writing.

By now, you're probably feeling a little sympathetic for Nick Bilton.⁵ Look at all these writers ganging up on him! They're just jealous/trolling for pageviews/don't have anything else to write about/all of the above. Don't be. This is just how journalism works on the web. If you or your editors fail to edit, the Internet is more than happy to step in and do it for you. 

Correction March 20, 2015: An earlier version of this post used the term "Fifth Estate" in reference to the entirety of the media industry. The correct term is "Fourth Estate."