Science journalism
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (August 2011) |
Science journalism conveys reporting about science to the public.[2] The field typically involves interactions between scientists, journalists and the public.
Origins
Modern science journalism originated in weather and other natural history observations, as well as reports of new scientific findings, reported by almanacs and other news writing in the centuries following the advent of the printing press. One early example dates back to
Aims
Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting, facts, numbers and being right. Journalism values brevity, approximation, the personal, the colloquial, the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be tensions.
The aim of a
Science journalists often have training in the scientific disciplines that they cover. Some have earned a degree in a scientific field before becoming journalists or exhibited talent in writing about science subjects. However, good preparation for interviews and even deceptively simple questions such as "What does this mean to the people on the street?" can often help a science journalist develop material that is useful for the intended audience.[9]
Status
With budget cuts at major newspapers and other media, there are fewer working science journalists employed by traditional print and broadcast media than before.[10] Similarly, there are currently very few journalists in traditional media outlets that write multiple articles on emerging science, such as nanotechnology.
In 2011, there were 459 journalists who had written a newspaper article covering nanotechnology, of whom 7 wrote about the topic more than 25 times.[11]
In January 2012, just a week after The Daily Climate reported that worldwide coverage of climate change continued a three-year slide in 2012[12] and that among the five largest US dailies, the New York Times published the most stories and had the biggest increase in coverage,[13] that newspaper announced that it was dismantling its environmental desk and merging its journalists with other departments.[14]
News coverage on science by traditional media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, radio and news broadcasts is being replaced by online sources. In April 2012, the New York Times was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes for content published by Politico and The Huffington Post (now HuffPost) both online sources, a sign of the platform shift by the media outlet.
Science information continues to be widely available to the public online. The increase in access to scientific studies and findings causes science journalism to adapt. "In many countries the public's main source of information about science and technology is the mass media."[15] Science journalists must compete for attention with other stories that are perceived as more entertaining. Science information cannot always be sensationalized to capture attention and the sheer amount of available information can cause important findings to be buried. The general public does not typically search for science information unless it is mentioned or discussed in mainstream media first.[15] However, the mass media are the most important or only source of scientific information for people after completing their education.[16]
A common misconception about public interest surrounds science journalism. Those who choose which news stories are important typically assume the public is not as interested in news written by a scientist and would rather receive news stories that are written by general reporters instead. The results of a study conducted comparing public interest between news stories written by scientists and stories written by reporters concluded there is no significant difference.[15] The public was equally interested in news stories written by a reporter and a scientist. This is a positive finding for science journalism because it shows it is increasingly relevant and is relied upon by the public to make informed decisions. "The vast majority of non-specialists obtain almost all their knowledge about science from journalists, who serve as the primary gatekeepers for scientific information."[17] Ethical and accurate reporting by science journalists is vital to keeping the public informed.
Science journalism is reported differently than traditional journalism. Conventionally, journalism is seen as more ethical if it is balanced reporting and includes information from both sides of an issue. Science journalism has moved to an authoritative type of reporting where they present information based on peer reviewed evidence and either ignore the conflicting side or point out their lack of evidence. Science journalism continues to adapt to a slow journalism method that is very time-consuming but contains higher quality information from peer-reviewed sources. They also practice sustainable journalism that focuses on solutions rather than only the problem.[18] Presenting information from both sides of the issue can confuse readers on what the actual findings show. Balanced reporting can actually lead to unbalanced reporting because it gives attention to extreme minority views in the science community, implying that the both sides have an equal number of supporters. It can give the false impression that an opposing minority viewpoint is valid.[19]
For example, a 2019 survey of
The public benefits from an authoritative reporting style in guiding them to make informed decisions about their lifestyle and health.
Tracking the remaining experienced science journalists is becoming increasingly difficult. For example, in Australia, the number of science journalists has decreased to abysmal numbers: "you need less than one hand to count them."[21] Due to the rapidly decreasing number of science journalists, experiments on ways to improve science journalism are also rare. However, in one of the few experiments conducted with science journalists, when the remaining population of science journalists networked online, they produced more accurate articles than when in isolation.[22] New communication environments provide essentially unlimited information on a large number of issues, which can be obtained anywhere and with relatively limited effort. The web also offers opportunities for citizens to connect with others through social media and other 2.0-type tools to make sense of this information.
"After a lot of hand wringing about the newspaper industry about six years ago, I take a more optimistic view these days," said Cristine Russell, president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "The world is online. Science writers today have the opportunity to communicate not just with their audience but globally".[23]
Blog-based science reporting is filling in to some degree, but has problems of its own.[24]
One of the main findings is about the controversy surrounding
Since the 1980s, climate science and mass media have transformed into an increasingly politicized sphere.[26] In the United States, Conservatives and Liberals understand global warming differently. Democrats often accept the evidence for global warming and think that it's caused by humans, while not many Republicans believe this. Democrats and liberals have higher and more steady trust in scientists, while conservative Republicans' trust in scientists has been declining.[25] However, in the United Kingdom, mass media do not have nearly the impact on people's opinions as in the United States. They have a different attitude towards the environment which prompted them to approve the Kyoto Protocol, which works to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, while the U.S., the world's largest creator of carbon dioxide, has not done so.[26]
The content of news stories regarding climate change are affected by journalistic norms including balance,
Chocolate hoax
In 2015,
Criticism
Science journalists keep the public informed of scientific advancements and assess the appropriateness of scientific research. However, this work comes with a set of criticisms. Science journalists regularly come under criticism for misleading reporting of scientific stories. All three groups of scientists, journalists and the public often criticize science journalism for bias and inaccuracies. However, with the increasing collaborations online between science journalists there may be potential with removing inaccuracies.[29]
The 2010 book
Scholars have criticized science journalists for:
- Uncritical reporting[32]
- Emphasizing frames of scientific progress and economic prospect[33]
- Not presenting a range of expert opinion[34]
- Having preferences toward positive messages[35]
- Reporting unrealistic timelines and engaging in the production of a "cycle of hype"[36]
Science journalists can be seen as the gatekeepers of scientific information. Just like traditional journalists, science journalists are responsible for what truths reach the public.
Scientific information is often costly to access. This is counterproductive to the goals of science journalism. Open science, a movement for "free availability and usability of scholarly publications," seeks to counteract the accessibility issues of valuable scientific information.[37] Freely accessible scientific journals will decrease the public's reliance on potentially biased popular media for scientific information.
Many
Many pharmaceutical marketing representatives have come under fire for offering free meals to doctors in order to promote new drugs.[40][41] Critics of science journalists have argued that they should disclose whether industry groups have paid for a journalist to travel, or has received free meals or other gifts.[42]
Science journalism finds itself under a critical eye due to the fact that it combines the necessary tasks of a journalist along with the investigative process of a scientist.
Science journalist responsibility
Science journalists offer important contributions to the open science movement by using the Value Judgement Principle (VJP).[43] Science journalists are responsible for "identifying and explaining major value judgments for members of the public." In other words, science journalists must make judgments such as what is good and bad (right and wrong). This is a very significant role because it helps "equip non-specialists to draw on scientific information and make decisions that accord with their own values".[37] While scientific information is often portrayed in quantitative terms and can be interpreted by experts, the audience must ultimately decide how to feel about the information. Most science journalists begin their careers as either a scientist or a journalist and transition to science communication.[44] One area in which science journalists seem to support varying sides of an issue is in risk communication. Science journalists may choose to highlight the amount of risk that studies have uncovered while others focus more on the benefits depending on audience and framing. Science journalism in contemporary risk societies leads to the institutionalisation of mediated scientific public spheres which exclusively discuss science and technology related issues.[45] This also leads to the development of new professional relationship between scientists and journalists, which is mutually beneficial.[45]
Types
There are many different examples of science writing. A few examples include
Notable science journalists
- Natalie Angier, a science journalist for The New York Times
- Philip Ball, English science writer
- Jules Bergman, a science journalist for ABC News
- Christopher Bird
- David Bodanis, known for his microphotographic style
- David Bradley (UK journalist)
- William Broad, a science journalist for The New York Times
- Deborah Byrd, of the Earth & Sky radio series
- Peter Calamai, science journalist for the Toronto Star
- Nigel Calder
- Siri Carpenter
- Marcus Chown
- Cosmos magazine
- Claudia Dreifus
- David Ewing Duncan
- Gregg Easterbrook
- Dan Fagin
- Kitty Ferguson
- Timothy Ferris, science writer, most often on astronomical topics
- Albrecht Fölsing
- Ben Goldacre
- Gina Kolata, science journalist for The New York Times
- Robert Krulwich
- Robert Kunzig
- Duncan Lunan
- Katherine McAlpine
- Bob McDonald, Canadian science journalist, host of Quirks & Quarks
- Steve Mirsky, columnist for Scientific American
- Chris Mooney, science journalist and author
- Michelle Nijhuis
- Dennis Overbye of The New York Times
- Peter Hadfield, freelance journalist and ex-geologist, known for his YouTube channel 'Potholer54'
- Michael Pollan
- David Quammen, science, nature and travel writer
- Mary Roach
- Wall Street Journal
- Kirsten Sanford
- Rebecca Skloot
- Meredith Small
- John Timmer
- Nicholas Wade, a science journalist for The New York Times
- Robyn Williams
- Carl Zimmer
- Nagendra Vijay
See also
- Columbia Journalism Review[46]
- False balance
- Frontiers of Science, defunct illustrated comic strip
- Further research is needed
- MATTER, magazine
- Knight Science Journalism Fellowships,[47]a science journalism fellowship program launched in 1983
- Open science
- Popular science
- Public awareness of science
- Science by press conference
- Science communication
- Scientific literature
- Science Writing
- Undark Magazine,[48] science magazine published under the auspices of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship program
References
- ^ "Emma Reh (1896–1982)". Smithsonian Institution Archives. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 11 July 2013.
- ^ "What is science journalism". gcu.edu. 8 February 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2023.
- ^ (Patairiya M.K. 1990)
- ISBN 9781139497251.
- ^ a b Gristock, J. (2006) "J.G. Crowther, Kuhn and Systems of Mediation", paper presented at the Scientists and Social Commitment Conference, Science Museum, London, 15–17 September.
- ^ "Science and the media – an uncomfortable fit By Sallie Robbins". London: Blogs.independent.co.uk. 27 September 2011. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 6 July 2013.
- ISBN 978-1-315-67133-8.
- S2CID 243084507.
- ^ "Science journalism: A remedy for lack of reliable, trustworthy information in the media?". MC_ONLINE. 29 April 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
- ^ Zara, Christopher (10 January 2013). "Remember Newspaper Science Sections? They're Almost All Gone". International Business Times. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
- S2CID 143289969.
- ^ Fischer, Douglas. "Climate coverage, dominated by weird weather, falls further in 2012". Archived from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
- ^ "MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING". Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.
- ^ Bagley, Katherine (11 January 2013). "New York Times Dismantles Its Environment Desk: Times says demise of the nine-person team, created in 2009, won't affect climate coverage". Inside Climate News. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
- ^ PMID 31914124.
- ^ S2CID 197684574.
- S2CID 208176666.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-022862-0, retrieved 16 November 2020
- PMID 17330062.
- ^ Gibbs, Meryl; Wilkes, Robert; Wilkes, Meryl Gibbs and Robert (20 August 2018). "The Great Climate Change Debate". Divided We Fall. Retrieved 4 May 2023.
- ^ Leach, J. (20 June 2017). "Science journalism is in Australia's interest, but needs support to thrive". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
- ^ Novin, Alamir (17 August 2013). "DEBATECITED: An empirical experiment into the value of open-source research methods and peer collaboration to science journalism" (PDF). Spectrum. Masters Thesis, Concordia University.
- ^ Zara, Christopher (10 January 2013). "Remember Newspaper Science Sections? They're Almost All Gone". International Business Times. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
- ^ "Unpopular Science", by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Nation, 17 Aug. 2009
- ^ a b Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E. An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science. 2014;23(7):866-883.
- ^ a b Boykoff, M. T., & Rajan, S. R. (2007). Signals and noise. EMBO Reports, 8(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400924
- ^ John Bohannon (27 May 2015). "I Fooled Millions into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How". Io9.
- ^ "International Press Release: Slim by Chocolate". instituteofdiet.com. Archived from the original on 12 December 2015.
- ^ Novin, A., Secko, D. (25 November 2012). "Debate Cited: A First Exploration of a Web Application to Enhance the Production of Science Journalism Students". Journalism Interest Group. CCA/Groupe d’intérêt en journalisme, ACC Conference Proceedings (2012). Retrieved 8 September 2016.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Peter T. Doran & Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 February 2009.
- ^ "Bad science | Science". The Guardian. London. 27 July 2007. Retrieved 6 July 2013.
- PMID 16174544.
- S2CID 145193488.
- S2CID 24862730.
- S2CID 143454575.
- S2CID 510676– via Pubmed.
- ^ S2CID 208176666.
- ^ "Science Needs a Storyline". Columbia Journalism Review.
- ^ "Transparency Watch: A Closed Door". Columbia Journalism Review.
- S2CID 23108561.
- PMID 24978481.
- ^ "Where do science journalists draw the line?". Columbia Journalism Review.
- ISSN 2297-900X.
- ^ Zivkovic, Bora."The Line Between Science and Journalism is Getting Blurry Again","Science Progress", 21 December 2010.
- ^ a b Shiju Sam Varughese. 2017. Contested Knowledge: Science, Media, and Democracy in Kerala. Oxford University Press, New Delhi
- ^ "Community Resources for Justice". crj.org.
- ^ "Being a Science Journalist". ksj.mit.edu.
- ^ "Why Science Journalism Matters". undark.org. 17 March 2016.
External links
- Science Publications at Curlie
Further reading
- Brainard, Curtis (20 March 2009). "Nature's Artificial Divide". Columbia Journalism Review.
- Yong, Ed (29 July 2010). "On the Origin of Science Writers". National Geographic Phenomena Blog. Archived from the original on 11 March 2021.