Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 18 March 2009 |
Nature
458,
274-277
(2009)
| doi:10.1038/458274a
Corrected online: 1 April 2009
News Feature
Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?
Science journalism is in decline; science blogging is growing fast. But can the one replace the other, asks Geoff Brumfiel.
John Timmer's slide into journalism was so gradual even he can't put his finger on the point at which he stopped being a researcher.
He started reading Internet websites and message boards a decade ago, while he was working as a postdoc in a developmental neurobiology lab at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Hotz is right that science bloggers may not act as watchdogs and critics in the same way a good journalist would, but they would with the proper training. The ethics of science and journalism are different -- and could be complimentary. As more scientists step into writing for the public and each other, they would benefit from articles and workshops that would teach them how to think like journalists. In the meantime, much of the mainstream news media is simply rearranging press releases as if they were filling out MadBibs -- displaying none of the ideals that Hotz mentioned. Science bloggers can be far more critical than an overworked reporter, but their scrutiny tends to be focused on scientific rigor and other things that scientists instinctively judge when reading a paper.
True, but who's to say that blogger is neutral? Companies with a stake in the news can hire a blogger just as easy as Conde Nast. We need people who are getting paid regular paychecks to be professional skeptics. Bloggers rarely have the time to do this well.
I posted a version of this comment at PZ land as well. It's fortuitous this article just came out today considering I just posted an in depth article on why scientists should blog: http://biochemicalsoul.com/2009/03/science-blogging-the-future-of-science-communication-why-you-should-be-a-part-of-it/. I also stated that Science journalism is largely being replaced by science blogs (with certain caveats). "Hotz doubts that blogs can fulfill the additional roles of watchdog and critic that the traditional media at their best aim to fulfill." I don't buy this particular argument at all. Science bloggers are much harsher critics of research details than journalists who generally don't understand the intricacies with sufficient detail to give a good critique. How many times have we read some horrible maiming of the true findings of science research by journalists? I personally just don't see this "watchdog" and "critiquing" activity actually occurring in the MSM - not when compared to some of the debates I've seen on particular research articles on blogs. "What's more, the amount of material available is not a good proxy for its reach. Press releases and blogs will not find the same broad audience once served by the mass media" I'm definitely of the mind that science journalists (at least as we have traditionally known them) are being made obsolete by bloggers. Nonetheless, I think this quote makes a very good point. We as bloggers will increasingly need to ask ourselves how to obtain the reach to those that don't search us out. I really have no idea how to answer this right now. Clearly this may become an issue as more MSM media outlets shut down their science departments... Thoughts?
Indeed, the media landscape as a whole is fragmenting and moving from a broadcast/push to a pull system. This is cause for concern as a society needs a mainstream. It would behoove every society well to make sure that every member is always informed as of what this mainstream is and whether he/she is holding a majority or a minority position. There is a fine line between a pluralistic and a fragmented society and one of the dangers of internet technology is fragmentation. Science journalism is but a part of these greater developments and this article shows very nicely indeed how science journalism reflects these developments. The scientific community needs a strong 'push' outlet for scientific news. The current malleability of the media structures makes this a great opportunity to establish such outlets. I concur with the editorial: As newspapers and TV channels are receding and consolidating, we need clever ideas of how science can fill the broadcast media void. Science will not thrive without a significant reach into the generally unscientific public via push/broadcast media.
A unique merit of printed daily news is that it can focus the attention of a substantial fraction of the public on an issue suddenly and simultaneously?if briefly?whether or not readers have prior interest in it. This simultaneity contrasts with the blogosphere's hunter-gatherer, preaching-to-the-choir dynamic in that it offers at least a shot at engaging the interest of the uninitiated and the neutral while edifying or provoking the informed. A prime instance is drawing young people, with the support of their families, toward the possibility of science and technology careers. When President Clinton's chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, later became President of the University on North Carolina, he made attracting grade-schoolers into science-track curicula a high priority. Some of us who agreed came up with a mechanism to help. We proposed a weekly "Carolina Sci-Tech" newspaper section that could be prepared centrally but published in all seven McClatchy newspapers in the two Carolinas, distributing reporting and editorial costs across all seven?perhaps, partially funded by a blind trust to get it started. In support of the Sci-Tech section, the universities and colleges offered the project liaison help with the the technical private sector; a flow of new story references; technical explanations upon request and general supportive collaboration. Via letters to the editors involved, the idea was endorsed by the presidents of both states' universities, the presidents of both states' community and technical college systems; one past governor and leaders in science and science education. It was also strongly endorsed by science teachers faced with the impossibility of simultaneously enticing students to consider sci-tech careers while teaching a rigid curriculum toward an end-of-term exam. The prospect of "live" local material was particularly appealing to teachers who found the best science textbooks becoming dated long before the term was out. We did not prevail. The idea of outsiders, however respected and supportive, playing in the pros' sandbox was anathema to the papers. Over two centuries, the First Amendment has morphed from "thou shalt not constrain expression" to "if it would work, we would have thought of it; go away." Author John David Garcia used to say that any system that has the ability to constrain feedback to itself will do so and will continually degenerate for want of feedback. Watching print journalism?navigating by tradition?fly itself into the ground, invokes John's perspective. Science blogs aren't winning; it's a forfeited game.
@Stan Thompson - that sounds like a truly excellent effort (though it failed). I wonder if it gets tried again in a year or two if it would have better luck. I mean if newspapers are still alive, and no longer have science journalists, how can they refuse free material with which they might make money? (I'm correct in assuming this would be free for the papers, right?). This is EXACTLY the type of program that will be required if we want science communications to have broad reach.
Lots of people are writing stuff, lots or people are reading it, but do we have effective communication? As a scientist who works with journalists and also runs a science blog at http://2020science.org, the erosion of traditional science journalism worries me. Scientists who write well are a precious commodity, but they don't necessarily have the skill and perspective to either place what they write about in a broader social context, or to communicate to a broad audience. The result - cosy on-line cliques where writers pat each other on the back, while readers desperate for accessible, relevant, contextualized information are starved. Science blogs have an essential role to play in communication and information exchange. I wouldn't write myself if I didn't believe that. But I have no illusions about my output matching the relevance and accessibility of a professional journalist. Instead, my stuff hopefully provides a personal perspective on (in my case) emerging technology and society that complements the mainstream media. It's fashionable for scientists and bloggers alike to trash mainstream science reporting. But we do it at our peril. Most scientists (I count myself here) are lousy communicators outside their immediate field, and one of the dangers of the web is that it seduces people into thinking otherwise. Rather, we need to make sure that professional communicators are given the opportunities and resources they need to get information to people that can really benefit from it, not just to the cliques and easy targets.
Full disclosure: As a longtime member of NASW, as the daughter of a longtime member, as a former research-center PIO (public information officer) and a present freelancer, and as a well-educated scientizer, I believe I can speak to the need for great investigative science journalists without myself being one. Any science that cannot be kept fully honest from the inside is asking for and deserves prodding from without, which is the most important function served by the investigative science journalist. Apart from investigative reporting, a good science journalist should be a thorough researcher, articulate, and broadly informed. A scientist who becomes a writer is likely to be extremely well informed in one or two areas but far less aware generally. When my dad would tell people he was a medical journalist, they would always ask him, "Are you a doctor?" He would patiently explain that only his NOT being a doctor enabled him to put himself in his reader's place when he talked to doctors. Moreover, he would add, most doctors do not have the time to read as much in their own fields as he would read when readying an article. Nor would the doctors be able to solicit the views of other doctors without engaging biases. Yet some of the very best science writing is done by doctors (let me name just Atul Gawande here, among many others). It emerges from their intelligent consideration of their own experience. The best new writing by other scientists shares this characteristic. It is fascinating, and it complements the efforts of good science journalists. I submit that the public's interests are best served by having both scientists and science journalists writing to the public in some sort of equilibrium. If that is the case, newspapers didn't serve so well even when they had science and health sections (apart from the good investigations, there was very inconsistent explanation of results in context--even without adding in press-release-rewrites). The scientifically aware public needed newspapers, magazines, and books to get a good grip on the sciences--which makes that public nearly identical with the good science journalists themselves and the scientists upon whom they rely. The final moiety probably consists of program officers at the agencies that fund science. So how now, in a paperless age, to get beyond the "scientifically aware" public and reach the merely interested? I think Clay Shirkey may be right when he says that we are in such a turbulent transitional period that it is hard to see past the edges of what's happening to get a glimpse of how this group might be served in the future. But they won't be served at all if we set up false dichotomies among all who try to speak to the public. There are clearly differences, but they aren't antagonisms. Science journalists, both investigative and PIO-type (oh, the glory of it!), should learn to work with scientists who write. I'd encourage experimental teaming arrangements among all of us. Maybe we could organize a large summer-camp/workshop to begin with?
Arianna Huffington Wrote a nice piece on the death of newspapers here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman?currentPage=all The online mainstream media is starting to look more and more like blogs with comment fields. The paper media is obsolete. You are limited by print space, can't link to sources, and will not be kept honest by a comment field. The commenters are the key to improving our sources of information. No writer likes having mistakes rubbed in his or her face. I think polarization is fine. As long as there are comment fields, people will be exposed to new arguments. http://www.biodiversivist.com
With all of the grudge holding and political backstabbing that goes on within the scientific community, why would anyone want to publicly criticize another scientist's work in such a recorded and permanent medium (thanks to Google archive) as a blog? Your average scientist already has a long enough "do not review" list. Why commit career suicide by publically criticize the work of professors that sit, or one day will sit, on grant review boards? It is no coincidence that most publication reviews are returned without the reviewer's name attached.