- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
You Say You Want a Revolution?
Science journalists gathered at USC Annenberg on Monday to address the question, “Does Science Get a Fair Shake in the Media?” Their answer, unsurprisingly, was no.
Public interest in science reporting is low: 16 percent of the U.S. public follows science stories closely, according to Pew polling data. And many science reporters lack training in scientific disciplines and get assigned beats across an unmanageably large spectrum of scientific fields. So it’s no surprise that what gets covered in the news often misses the mark.
But what about blogs? Bloggers such as PZ Myers are gaining a reputation online, and also have solid backgrounds in the sciences. And interestingly, some of the devoted followers of this media are science journalists.
As members of the Scientific American-sponsored panel pointed out, science blogs could be just the “revolution” science journalism is looking for. But what if science blogs aren’t just a source, but an authority?
Feedback from journalists could surely improve the quality (and presumably, the reach) of some bloggers, as USC astronomy and physics professor Clifford Johnson pointed out. But journalists could learn some tricks from bloggers, too.
Because most scientists aren’t trained at communicating the details or significance of their work, and most journalists don’t have a science background, the details are lost in the reporting.
Traditional science journalism is also frequently trapped in the counterproductive the conflict-and-drama-driven model. Much science coverage in the mainstream media concerns recently-released studies that claim to reverse current understandings:
At the point of publication, most individual papers have “had almost no impact on thinking,” said Scientific American Editor in Chief and discussion moderator John Rennie. Many papers are later proven wrong.
As Matt Nisbet pointed out in response to a recent New York Times Magazine article on epidemiological studies, the release of a new scientific study is not necessarily newsworthy. But with more and more science journalists trolling the profusion of science blogs for story leads, the focus could be brought back to more significant science.
So can science bloggers establish their own authoritative voice in the media? If 16 percent of the public included trustworthy science bloggers in their media orbit, we might be on the way to revolution.
Comments on this article



Forgive my apparent cynicism, but my real concern is “Does science get a fair shake in the Bush Adminstration?” Although they’ll undoubtedly say “Yes,” from my outside position the answer is an emphatic “No!”
Unfortunately I believe my question is far more important to what’s happening to science and to the rest of us these days.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pmOr this:
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf
October 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pm