An embargo on science?
Will science coverage suffer if the embargo system is abandoned? If science reporters no longer have the advantage of several days to research their articles and talk to sources, will they start churning out crap?
This topic was touched on several times today. Over lunch, Alexandra Witze from Nature was kind enough to explain the basics of the embargo system to us (me, Laura and Mark).
In the embargo system, everyone gets a list of journal articles, PDFs and supporting information in advance, on the condition that they will not publish anything until the agreed-upon date. Each news organization then decides what to write about, and the stories are all published the same day, coinciding with the publication of the journal article. These tip sheets from the major journals, said Witze, are the “bread and butter” of science journalists.
Nowadays, journals are beginning to publish some articles online ahead of their print edition. Don Kennedy of Science said that this trend was likely to continue, and that the media might soon be receiving science information in “driblets,” rather than the nice packages they are accustomed to. This could put science journalists in the position of scrambling to put a story together, perhaps even leaving out important pieces of the puzzle.
Scientists, after all, are not easy creatures to catch hold of. They are rarely in their offices, more likely to be found lurking in the back of a committee meeting, lecturing to undergrads, or perhaps even looking over their graduate students’ shoulders. I can only imagine working on a deadline, trying to get ahold of an expert to provide you with some context or an explanation on a difficult topic.
It’s not necessarily about being first, though. Alfred Hermida pointed out that even if a story has already been reported, a thoughtful analysis will always add value. The addition of expert voices and context will be a welcome explanation to those readers whose interest was aroused by the initial short news stories on a newly released paper.
Perhaps, in an ideal world, science journalists could specialize further, and really get to know what they are talking about in a specific field. Trying to know everything about science is like trying to know every word in a dictionary. If a writer already has a good understanding of the context in their field, they can put a new finding into perspective more easily.
Comments (0) • Permalink
