March 12, 2007
by Andrew McGregor
The primary source material for science writers, the scientists themselves, are quite often a problem during reporting.
The reasons scientists are doing what they do have nothing in common with why journalists want to write about them. The scientists may just like using math to look for the face of God or enjoy studying chimpanzees when a PhD opportunity was roaming nearby.
Scientists also have a fear of being misquoted or misunderstood. This is a valid concern as so much energy in the scientific career is exerted to learn one small thing very well that it is often difficult to translate this knowledge in terms that the average journalist can understand. Issues such as these are exacerbated by the fact that journalism relies upon standardized narratives in order to convey information such as a personality profile of a celebrity or human interest story of the kind-hearted woman with forty cats ilk.
Conduct such as the preceding is antithetical to much of the scientific culture where even papers published by one author still use the word “we”. The scientific community deems personal glorification to be vulgar and places the scientist who seeks such a thing in a suspicious light.
This deadlock of mutual misunderstanding may have a solution in the blogosphere because many scientific discoveries are reported according to what the journalists already know or conflict of interest situations may emerge where the scientists have a vested interest in seeing their findings reported. The blogosphere can provide instant feedback into the claims of scientific discovery as there is more of a back and forth relationship than in other forms of journalism.
The blogosphere also lends itself to multi-media interpretations of scientific discoveries as scientists themselves can blog or provide visual representations of their work.
There is optimism in the room that through this technologically facilitated go-between scientists and journalists can learn to communicate…even if they can never really speak the same language.
By Andrew McGregor, 03/12/07 at 2:44 pm
Posted in
News
Comments (1) •
Permalink •
Tell-a-Friend
March 12, 2007
What are we after, here?
We want to engender a trust of scientific evidence, through an appreciation for the process that produces that evidence. We want people to know why they believe what they believe. Many participants emphasized (or implied) that focus on scientific process is the way to achieve this, and I believe they’re right.
However, Michael Lemonick pointed out that there has been a great deal of excellent science writing that has done exactly this. Many writers have pointed out the fallibility/reversibility of science, stressed process over facts, and highlighted the difference between common and scientific usages of terms like “theory.” Many of the attendees have written stories conveying the passion and drama of science. Even with all of these great pieces of writing, half the population still disbelieves evolution and trusts astrology.
The proposition that if we could only produce more articles about science process, things would be different - Lemonick said - is kidding ourselves. People have read these stories, and the world hasn’t changed. Maybe more stories would have more effect - but what reason do we have to believe that editors will include more stories now, hearing the same arguments they always have?
KC Cole pointed out that there is such a thing as a tipping point. Continued emphasis can have an effect on editors and on the public consciousness. New media also provide a unique opportunity to collect thorough statistics on readership. Every click on a page can be counted, in a way that every page read by newspaper or magazine subscribers could not. These statistics could prove convincing to editors (and advertisers) that there ought to be more science in the media.
There seemed to be a general consensus of the types of stories that ought to be told. The questions that remain are how and where to tell those stories, and how to convince editors to run them. And Mr. Lemonick’s challenge should be kept in mind: how do we know we’re not kidding ourselves, telling good stories in the same old ways? How do we know that what we’re doing is truly New?
March 07, 2007
Two dozen prominent science journalists and science communicators were invited to participate in this special conference with three goals: 1) Identify the critical issues facing science journalists in the digital age; 2) identify innovative forms of multimedia story-telling and presentation of complex issues online; and 3) identify “best practices” for coverage of science issues on digital platforms. Among the topics discussed were:
- Defining exactly what is “science”;
- Revealing untold science stories and determining why they have not been told;
- Exploring visual journalism and digital story telling techniques.
Knight Digital Media Center welcomes comments from readers related to the journalists’ specific discussions or related to the more general topic of science journalism. To post your comments, please browse the blog posts once the seminar has begun.
By Vikki Porter, 03/07/07 at 12:56 pm
Posted in
News
Comments (1) •
Permalink •
Tell-a-Friend
RSS Feed
