Editorial
Nature 459, 1033 (25 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/4591033a; Published online 24 June 2009
Cheerleader or watchdog?
Science journalism is under threat. What can scientists do to help?
What should any researcher expect from a journalist beyond the keen intelligence needed to see the newsworthiness of the researcher's work, and the ability to spell his or her name correctly?
For some scientists, the answer is probably 'Not much'. Many tend to think of science journalism as a kind of public-relations service, existing purely to explain new scientific findings to the masses. They may well enjoy reading the results, and give points for a writer's ability to convey the excitement of a discovery, but they will mainly judge an article on its scientific accuracy.
On top of this, some will see science journalism as an ally, useful for shaping the public's understanding of science-related issues such as nuclear proliferation, stem cells or genetically modified crops — and, not incidentally, for making the case for a thriving research enterprise to public and politicians alike.
And a minority, moving beyond perceived self-interest, will point to the deeper value of journalism, which is to cast a fair but sceptical eye over everything in the public sphere — science included. This kind of scrutiny is easy for researchers to applaud when a news report questions dodgy statistics, say, or dubious claims about uncertainties in evolution. It is not so easy when the story takes a critical look at sloppy animal-research practices, overblown claims about climate change or scientists' conflicts of interest. But such examinations are to the benefit of the enterprise as a whole: society needs to see science scrutinized as well as regurgitated if it is to give science its trust, and journalists are an essential part of that process.
At the moment, unfortunately, journalism's future is far from clear. At the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists, which will be held next week in London, and of which Nature is a sponsor, there will probably be many attendees wondering if this is journalism's swan song. Readers — and small ads, once a reliable earner — are migrating to the Internet. New business models in which papers are given away have caused damaging dislocations in some markets, as in Denmark.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
+++++
O beija-mão e beija-pé dos jornalistas científicos quando entrevistam cientistas
Nature 459, 1054-1055 (25 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/4591054a; Published online 24 June 2009
Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood
Toby Murcott1
Toby Murcott is a writer and broadcaster and former science correspondent for the BBC World Service. A longer version of this Essay will appear in Communicating Biological Sciences, which will be published in November by Ashgate.
Email: toby.murcott@ketoe.co.uk.
In the first of three essays, Toby Murcott argues that the process of science needs to be opened up if journalists are to provide proper critique.
There is a rhythm to science news, easy to spot in the mainstream media and as familiar to every science journalist as breathing. It follows the publication cycles of the major peer-reviewed journals such as Science, The Lancet and Nature. As press releases describing research arrive in our inboxes they are scanned for stories, the most newsworthy picked, offered to editors and then reported.
This is not unusual. As British journalist Nick Davies points out in his book Flat Earth News, much of the news agenda in all fields is press-release driven. Journalists are of course trained to stand back and provide a critique, including context and a broader perspective, rather than simply reporting what they read in a press release. But doing so is a particular challenge for science journalists.
To best serve our audiences, we journalists need to be able to see how a new finding fits into the field, know when something new is significant, and have the knowledge and the confidence to ask searching questions. I have a PhD in biochemistry and three years postdoctoral research, so if I am reporting a discovery in my field, I can make a reasonable attempt at understanding the technical detail and will have a sense of the overall history, evolution of ideas and current debates. I will know who is a leader in the field, and who is an outlier; I will be able to distinguish majority views from minority ones. Yet as a science journalist I am expected to cover more than just biochemistry. I need to be able to report on findings in cosmology, ecology, particle physics and much more. To draw on the knowledge of scientists in these fields, I must first find out which scientists are most relevant, and have a sense of their opinions and place within the field. All of this takes time, which reporters often don't have.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
Essay
Nature 459, 1055-1056 (25 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/4591055a; Published online 24 June 2009
Science journalism: Too close for comfort
Boyce Rensberger1
Boyce Rensberger was director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge from 1998 to 2008, and a science reporter for 32 years, chiefly at The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Email: boycerensberger@gmail.com
In the second of three essays, Boyce Rensberger tracks the progression of scientific correspondents from cheerleaders to watchdogs.
Science journalism has undergone profound changes since its origin more than a century ago, some more radical than most journalists of today are aware. Although there are legitimate complaints that some current reporters are too close to their sources, or otherwise unable to deliver a disinterested analysis of the field, it is salutary to reflect on how far the profession has come since its beginning.
In the 1890s, there seem to have been no full-time science journalists in either the United States or Britain, although there was one notable part-timer — H. G. Wells. When he wasn't writing science fiction, he penned newspaper articles on genuine scientific findings, arguing that there was a need for writers to translate scientists' jargon and use writing techniques to engage non-specialists. In an 1894 edition of Nature, Wells wrote of the need to employ what today is called narrative non-fiction: "The fundamental principles of construction that underlie such stories as Poe's 'Murders in the Rue Morgue', or Conan Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes' series, are precisely those that should guide a scientific writer." (See Nature 50, 300–301; 1894.)
A subserviência canina dos jornalistas científicos aos cientistas
Fazendo afagos nos cientistas quando o jornalista científico deveria ser mais cético em relação aos cientistas e seus dogmas teóricos, especialmente os sobre as origens e evolução do universo e da vida.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Como é bom ser vindicado em vida. E especialmente por uma grande publicação científica. Quando publiquei o artigo "Desnudando Darwin: ciência ou ideologia? Ou A relação incestuosa da mídia brasileira com a Nomenklatura científica", no Observatório da Imprensa (20/12/1998), eu me tornei persona non grata para a Nomenklatura científica e a Grande Mídia Tupiniquim por ter exposto a público uma situação inusitada numa democracia: o direito à informação é subtraído intencionalmente dos leitores quando a questão é Darwin e o materialismo filosófico mascarado de ciência.
Fui, rindo, sabendo porque, do Claudio Weber Abramo...
