March 13, 2007
A recent poll said that over half of Americans reject evolution. The cause of this dismal state of scientific ignorance is, as we all know, complicated. But where in this muddled mess of confusion do science writers fit in? Is an attempt to educate futile? According to Michael Lemonick, “we’re kidding ourselves if we think we can convince that 50% of the population.”
Of the rapture, Larry Gonick wondered if they believed that their bodies will physically ascend to the heavens. And if so, he’s been “wondering how to make a bet on that. The problem is that I won’t be able to collect when I win.”
Money-making schemes aside, what, if any, is our duty as science writers in education? As people chimed in around the room with their take on this, I sensed an old argument re-surfacing. “We are not educators,” Tom Siegfried said.
Someone else mentioned that we can’t be burdened by being the “explainers,” and trying to change the culture is hopeless. It is simply too hard.
The fact remains that the science stories in newspapers, on-line, and on the radio do educate the public, regardless of what we’d like our role to be. So how much (if at all) does this impact the day-to-day work of a science writer? Have you successful science writers learned to ignore this educational burden? Or do you simply do the best you can?
By Laura Sanders, 03/13/07 at 11:53 am
Posted in Science journalism
Comments (0) • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
March 13, 2007
So, judging from the discussions of the last few days, a modern science writer should have:
- a deep knowledge of statistics and an ability to evaluate scientific studies
- photographic skills
- web layout skills, preferably with a specialty in Flash
- broadcast experience of some kind (or at least some experience with video)
- an ability to determine what aspects of a story are best told in text as opposed to image.
(anyone care to add any more?)
... I’ll stick with my PhD program in neuroscience, thanks.
By Mark Lescroart, 03/13/07 at 10:59 am
Posted in News
Comments (1) • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
March 13, 2007
by Andrew McGregor
Alan Boyle of MSNBC exhibited some of the new online technologies, such as audio slide shows, that can illustrate the theoretical look of a moon base and things of this nature. The multi-media potential of the internet certainly has not been explored. Yet, what everyone in the room seems to be ignoring is the role of good writing and good journalism in attracting an audience: basically, quality.
During my graduate studies in journalism I was often baffled at the way new technologies were blamed for the impending death of the newspaper. This was exquisitely strong at USC as many a faculty member arrived there courtesy of a buy-out-deal from the tempestuous LA Times. My demographic of the younger male variety was particularly called out as not reading newspapers in addition to variegated economic considerations like ad revenues from the employment and real estate sections.
I confess, I don’t subscribe to a single newspaper; instead I read them online. However, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with technology because you know what? I do read journalistic periodicals on real paper: for example every week I read ‘The Economist’. A British weekly news magazine. I do this because it is well-written and honest in its stances on news coverage and interpretation. I also trust ‘The Economist’ over anything I read online. It is a bit pathetic that I have to seek news from across the Atlantic Ocean because I don’t want to read articles that make me feel like I am bathing in processed food. I don’t think I’m alone in this, I met with one of their editors a few months ago and he told me that The Economist’s circulation is up 46 percent in America.
Strange isn’t it? Good writing and good reporting leading to an increasing and loyal readership? Hmmm, something odd is afoot.
Many of the brilliant and talented writers in this room have voiced similar complaints to their higher-ups and the response they have ineluctably received is that, “the average American just doesn’t care about this. The average American isn’t educated enough to understand this…” Has anyone considered the possibility that the average American would read the newspaper more if it didn’t suck?
Certainly there will always be a steady American Idol/Britney Spears portion of the population. This perception cannot help but be encouraged by the fact that the companies that own newspapers own American Idol and if not Britney Spears herself then her likeness and persona.
However, the insistence on these new technologies is also a convenient sell for additional cost-cutting measures. The internet and digitization of technology now allows one reporter to take photos, edit video, cut an online radio broadcast, and write a brief story. The field of journalism should just take the US Army’s recruitment line: A Reporter of ONE.
The new technologies are making it possible to cut news staff even further and given that the internet is starving for content there is no logical way this will lead to an increase in quality.
It would be swell if the profound potential of the internet could be employed to the betterment of science writing and journalism in general. However, I fear that all this talk of technological innovation online is actually a justification for further reducing the pool of available journalism jobs.
Technological innovation will not solve the current problems of science writing and journalism as a whole. In what other field could one cut resources, remove local personnel and then when customers turn away blame the public for being too stupid to understand?
The road to quality cannot avoid hard work and sacrifice and the current batch of journalists are doing both; they are just having the road torn from beneath their feet.
By Andrew McGregor, 03/13/07 at 10:10 am
Posted in News
Comments (0) • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
RSS Feed
