Who can save science journalism? Readers
Online Journalism Review writes about the disconnect between
scientists and journalists, with the former rarely able to connect in
an understandable way and the latter focusing purely on conflict. I
think this is generally true, but not always.
And what the article suffers from, in an otherwise fine report, is the
generally false assumption that readers are unable to weed through the
competing voices in science and science journalism on their own to
arrive at their own conclusions.
Can science blogs save science journalism? (By Jean Yung, Online
Journalism Review)
Due to traditional media's budget considerations, a science
reporter is often responsible for several scientific disciplines,
and that inevitably leads to a lack of intelligent, dependable
coverage, or worse, over-coverage of wacky, pseudoscientific
studies such as Jessica Alba's score in an index of female
desirability.
On the other hand, many scientists cannot talk in layman's terms
about what they do. Neither are they trained to do so. 'No effort
has been made to help us reach out or learn to talk to the media
and to the public,' Johnson said, admitting that scientists as a
group are 'very bad' at communicating. More here
Backgrounder
Nano memory: 30,000 movies and nothing on
Serious nanotox reporting, for a change
Wilson Center's nano numbers racket
Nanotech's real danger is the nano con
A response to 'I, Nanobot'
No comments:
Post a Comment