End of the line for science journalism?
Maxine Clarke
Thursday, 18 June 2009 16:33 UTC
Many researchers see science journalists as a public-relations service or as an ally in spreading the news about their work, asserts a Nature Editorial this week (459, 1033; 2009 – free to read online). The Editorial points out that there is a deeper value of journalism: to cast a fair but sceptical eye over everything in the public sphere — science included. This kind of scrutiny is easy for researchers to applaud when a news report questions dodgy statistics or dubious claims about uncertainties in evolution. It is not so easy when the story takes a critical look at animal-research practices, overblown claims about climate change or scientists’ conflicts of interest. But such examinations are to the benefit of society, which needs to see science scrutinized as well as regurgitated, and journalists are an essential part of that process.
This week’s Nature special issue, of which the Editorial is a part, shines a spotlight on the profession in changing, troubled times, and is published to mark the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists from 30 June to 2 July 2009 in London.
Scientists can do little to stem the current bloodletting, in which readers and advertisers are deserting publications that are downsizing or folding at fast pace. But, argues the Editorial, they can make worthwhile attempts to ensure that questioning and informed science journalism persists in whatever new forms might emerge from the carnage. If the future of the media truly is a dire landscape of top-100 lists, shouting heads and minimal attention span, then such efforts might at least defer the grim end. A good start would be to have a look at the advice for academics speaking to journalists provided by Brad Delong and Susan Rasky. And from the other side of the coin, the Washington Post‘s national environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin and its executive editor Marcus Brauchli discuss the future of science coverage in their newspaper in a Nature Books&Arts Q&A.
But do newspapers even matter? Blogs and microblogging services like Twitter are opening up conferences to those not actually there – how is this direct to web exposure affecting science journalism, and indeed scientists themselves and their options for peer-review and publication of their research? A range of angles on these questions are covered in a Nature News feature, including the story of a recent ’blogostorm’ about a Cold Spring Harbor meeting in which scientists seemed free to report what journalists could not.
In other articles in this week’s Nature, Toby Murcott in Toppling the priesthood argues that the process of science needs to be opened up to journalists; Boyce Rensberger (Too close for comfort) tracks the progression of scientific correspondent from cheerleader to watchdog; and Nadia El-Awady in The Arab boom suggests much room for improvement in local journalism in Arab countries. The bottom line? To what extent should scientists help — or care? We’d love to know what you think.
(All the Nature articles mentioned and linked here are part of the science journalism special in the issue of 25 June 2009. The three Essays and the Books&Arts article are free to read online for 2 weeks from the publication date.)
Updated 24 June 2009 21:13 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Daniel – thanks for linking to that Michael Nielson blog post. I read it the other night and it’s stimulating reading. The point you make about opening up the process of science to jouralists is covered in the Essay by Toby Murcott in the Nature collection described in my post – he makes similar points. Personally I think that post-publication of peer reviewer comments AND, crucially, the editors’ decision process and the authors’ response at each revision, would offer fascinating insights. Nature has done this once or twice as an experiment (on Nature Reports Stem Cells for some of the stem-cell research published in Nature) and I’d love us to be able to do more of that. However, it is very “resource-intensive” for the journal staff who are already very busy doing their “day jobs”.
-
RE: End of the line for science journalism? — Hardly!
@Maxine: I wish to argue that this is not the end of the line for science journalism — for as long as the self-aware journalists would adhere to this motto: Science journalism shall exist for the good journalism’s sake, in as long as STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) shall persist in societies worldwide!
Since the Industrial Revolution, STEM have indeed been advancing globally, as exemplified by the current widespread of the Internet connectivity, a scientific fait accompli that has become an ubiquitous tool, for writing and disseminating journalism of all sorts (good and bad) worldwide, generally to the reaches of individuals, who are hungry for new information and knowledge that are essential to their both intellectual and spiritual educations and developments — the twin innate survivalisms that have had been driving our unique humanisms, worldwide, since over 50 thousand years ago; and that journalisms will never end, for as long as there are humans like us (scientists, journalists, etc) residing on this unique planet Earth!
As such, any self-conscientious journalists shall comprehend the current world readership and its appetite; and keep upgrading and maintaining their own, integral, journalist objectivity, honesty, integrity, quality, etc; for the fact that at the end of the day: All journalisms (good or bad) will ultimately reflect the integral mentality of the journalists, themselves; and therefore, all good science journalists shall adhere to their existential journalist motto (as described above) at all times!
Consequently, should any journalists (or scientists) attempt to venture out of their own writing objectivity and integrity, by crossing over the line of “science writing” into “sensational journalism” or “irrationalism” — as those examples that I recently analyzed here: “Science writer waits on legal advice in libel case — RE: Simon Singh vs. the BCA — How a “big bang” jolt could be defused into a “whimper” in the current fad/bad science writing industry!?” (NatureBlogsUK; May 20) and here: "Stephen Curry: I don’t know what to say — RE: The Nature editorial: Unjust burdens of proof — A counterpoint analysis!” (NatureNetworkUK; June 15) — that would be the day when their “good science journalism” will end — or maybe will end in one of the British royal courts!? Caveat lector!
Best wishes, Mong 7/4/9usct2:37p; author Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006), and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).
-
Science Journalism – which paradigm is more priest-ridden?
Toby Murcott, in the first of the three essays on science journalism, argues for giving science journalists access to peer-review comments. His main argument, indicated in the title: ‘Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood’, seems to be his distaste for science journalists’ having the passive role of mediating a deity, and having ‘little or no effect on the deity itself’.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that Murcott’s smuggled assumption that ‘the deity’ has an existence independent of its mediation, would not pass peer-review without additional critique, if it had been presented in a ‘letter’ to Nature. But my real point here is to challenge Murcott’s other assumptions – that journalists’ being explicit mediators, and journalists’ not ‘being part of the process’, are bad things. As a member of the scientific laity, I see much to commend in a priesthood with narrowly prescribed powers. To take up the model that Murcott explicitly uses for an admiring comparison – political journalism, I would argue that most of the deities of political ‘reporting’ are unbridled fictions of bad journalism.
Responding to a point above, by Daniel, election coverage in the media is highly skewed to represent a bipolar controversy between two national personalities, that becomes highly self-fulfilling. Evidence for this can be found in comparing by-election results, and general election results for the same constituency, where very different electoral behaviour appears when electors are provided with voting data in the national media relevant to their own contest. In my view, the media events that comprise most pre-election reporting do not constitute anything resembling independent data sets. But above all, I challenge the implication that any increase in publicity for science would necessarily be benign and assist the scientific process.
Taking one easily reproducible example, the documentary film Jimmy Carter Man from Plains, (directed by Jonathan Demme, 2007) showed journalists habitually picking up on the ‘controversy’ they found in the reception of Carter’s book, without any evidence that any of the journalists had read his book, (the ostensible subject of his interviews) and plenty of evidence that most have them had not. Most of the bad science reporting (and indeed most of any of the science reporting) that I see has been done by non-scientists who have not read the paper at all – just some of the press release. Would Murcott restrict the peer-review comments to his priesthood of ‘good’ science journalists ? And would even they always read the paper on which the criticisms were directed ?
The strength of peer-review, as I understand it, is that anonymous challenges help the reviewed paper to be shaped in a manner that is falsifiable, rather than that the interpretation should be unchallengeable. The weakness appears to be that anonymity can allow unconstructive comment. Published anonymous comment would be invidious and against everything I understand the scientific project to be. Attributed comment would itself have escaped the process of scientific scrutiny. Where there was a risk of publication of peer-review comments, all honourable motives for making criticism would be inhibited, and only the dishonourable ‘controversies’ would remain. The peer-review process would only operate on uncontroversial claims, and science journalism would have sunk to the worst level of political journalism, spinning around manufactured ‘controversies’.
The threat to many kinds of responsible criticism of the arts and sciences due to the economic decline of print media is real. But this is a thoroughly bad idea, and I am baffled why Nature, of all people, would give oxygen to a proposal so destructive to its own operation, without wanting to publish a counter-argument.
Roger Macy -
I have read articles where the anecedotal and explanations made the original paper unrecognizable…Then people blog and comment on the article rather than the paper. On the other hand a well written article can make complex protocols reachable for those of us who do not want to create electricity we just want to push the on button.
There were numerous articles based on bone marrow cells grown out and reinjected to put MS in remission with a significant success rate..some of the articles made it look like a needle in/needle out procedure when in fact the existing marrow was radiated etc which would lead to a careful consideration or risk versus benefit assessment from a safety and ethics viewpoint
-
Mr. Murcott suggests in his Opinion essay “Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood” (Nature 459, 1054-1055; 2009) that scientific writers generally lack the time needed to see “how a new finding fits into the fields, know when something is significant, and have the knowledge and confidence to ask searching questions.” However, these shortcomings only tell one side of the story.
Communications agents such as public information officers and public relations agencies are in a unique position to effectively bridge the gap between researchers and journalists.
A good media relations rep will do their due diligence to thoroughly understand the technology and put it in context. He or she will even know when it’s time to say “no” to a press release if the news lacks significance and is self-indulgent. Oftentimes, communications agents have the degree of separation needed to ask the right questions to extrapolate the findings to the general public. Finally, a good liaison will put the reporter in touch with contacts who can provide different perspectives to round out the story.
Collaborations between science journalists and communicators will permit reporters to go beyond a press release to provide the thoughtful analysis that the public deserves.
Murad Sabzali
Results
-
