Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why Science News is Getting More Worser. . . . .

Expand Messages
  • Potter at Island Resources
    It s all a matter of opinion -- several excellent links at the web page. . . . Janet Ralot s excellent blog from Science News: http://snurl.com/or8si
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      It's all a matter of opinion -- several excellent links at the web page. . . .

      Janet Ralot's excellent blog from Science News:
      http://snurl.com/or8si [www_sciencenews_org]

      Home / Blogs / Science & the Public / Blog entry

      NEWS OF SCIENCE: CHOOSE WISELY
      By Janet Raloff

      A provocative piece in the Aug. 17 Nation by author/blogger Chris
      Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, a marine biologist from Duke
      University, suggest science reporting isn't valued as it once was.
      One measure of this: declining numbers of seasoned journalists
      covering research - and a declining number of column inches and
      broadcast minutes of science coverage.

      How can this be? You'd think we'd want more and better research news
      with the growing threat of climate change; a need for newer and more
      efficient energy technologies; threats of flu pandemics; a migration
      of U.S. jobs to high-tech firms in the developing world; and chronic
      illnesses that are eating up an increasing share of the U.S. gross
      domestic product. In fact, the public may have a big appetite for
      news on such topics. But these days, media coverage and the human
      resources devoted to science and technology issues are not dictated
      by surveys of audience preferences.

      A meteoric three-decades rise in S&T coverage, beginning in the
      immediate post-Sputnik era, "sought nothing less than to bring
      science to the entire public, to mediate between the technical and
      the lay, the wonky and the approachable," Mooney and Kirshenbaum
      argue. "The thinking was that translating scientific knowledge into a
      form everyone could understand would help forge a more enlightened
      citizenry and, ultimately, a stronger democracy."

      Hard to argue with that.

      But several trends have been conspiring to erode S&T media
      performance. First, a move to turn the media into big revenue
      generators. The fact that the reporting and producing of news is an
      expensive operation appears to have escaped the attention of the
      idiots who have recently been investing in newspapers and broadcast
      networks. After buying into enormous debt to acquire news operations,
      media moguls have suddenly realized that they can't raise the money
      to easily pay off that debt. Especially as ad revenues have been
      moving away from the mainstream media, or MSM, and onto the Internet.
      The result: Experienced (and better paid) reporters and editors have
      been jettisoned over the past two years in favor of more (and lower
      cost) newbies.

      I can understand why this strategy might appeal to a media owner
      because those newbies can fill a news hole as effectively as their
      predecessors did. Unfortunately for news consumers, what
      inexperienced newbies offer is often no more than a succession of
      bite-size reports on developments devoid of context and perspective.
      Mooney and Kirshenbaum describe this trend pithily: "As a rule,
      journalists are always in search of the dramatic and the new. When it
      comes to science, however, this can lead [inexperienced reporters or
      editors] to pounce on each 'hot' new result, even if that finding
      contradicts the last hot result or is soon overturned by a subsequent
      study. The resulting staccato coverage can leave the public
      hopelessly exasperated and confused."

      The approach that works in much political coverage - a search for
      balance by providing the arguments of one side contrasted against
      those of the "other" side - sometimes falls on its face in S&T
      reporting.
      First, sometimes there aren't two sides. There might be essentially
      just one. To contrast it against one or more largely uninformed or
      misinformed fringe groups won't provide balance. It will just serve
      to elevate the credibility of groups that don't deserve it.

      Or there may be more than two sides. Perhaps five or more. To focus
      on any one or two - to the exclusion of the others - also does the
      public a disservice and again falls far short of the "balance."

      Or sometimes the news is not a controversy - with spicy competing
      quotes - but a slowly emerging trend that strengthens from some
      conventional wisdom into a general truth. Reporting this may not be
      as sexy as covering some political debate on climate change or the
      ethics of cloning. Still, the emerging truth may be what we need to
      hear. Even if it's not what we hoped or wanted to hear. And that's
      "how much of the press managed to bungle the most important
      science-related story of our time: global warming," Mooney and
      Kirshenbaum contend. They covered quotes or developments that
      appeared to contradict conventional wisdoms. They didn't cover the
      steady transformation of a "wisdom" into a truth.

      Trend two: Over the past three decades, the news media has splintered
      from a few major local newspapers and a handful of national networks
      into a proliferating universe of free or near-free cable and online
      sources. At least initially, those alternative media parasitized the
      MSM for content. Today, online and cable media are increasingly doing
      their own reporting and often well. But most have focused on
      political or niche topics. Few offer full-service reporting on the
      universe of issues that shape our lives - especially science and
      tech. And the vast majority of "news" on the Internet amounts to
      blogs.

      Blogs can be well researched and reasoned. But most instead are mere
      snippets of fact or some anecdote wrapped in a blanket of opinion.
      And most consumers don't appear to have figured out how to separate
      the one from the other. In fact, Mooney and Kirshenbaum maintain,
      "The web . . . empowers good and bad alike. Accurate science and the
      most stunning misinformation thrive side by side . . . and there is
      no reason to think good scientific information is somehow beating
      [the bad] back."

      Commentary has its place. But it should augment sound reporting, not
      attempt to substitute for it. Indeed, the Best Science Blog, last
      year, came down to a confrontation between two "polemical" sites -
      one that assaults religious faith and another that challenges
      mainstream interpretations of the science of climate change. Conclude
      Mooney and Kirshenbaum: "the Internet is not unifying our culture
      around a comprehensive or even reliable diet of scientific
      information, and it isn't replacing what's being lost in the old
      media."

      On July 13, Mooney and Kirshenbaum's new book came out, "Unscientific
      America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future" (2009, Basic
      Books, 224 pp.). I haven't had a chance to read it yet. But it seems
      to tackle in greater depth the issues they bring up in The Nation.

      So what's the solution? The pair argue for a move toward nonprofit
      reporting and commentary. They recommend encouraging the reporting
      and analysis of S&T developments by universities, research-interest
      groups and others. I guess we, at Science News, fall into that
      general rubric.

      But what we really need are more challenging and discriminating news consumers.

      Learning how to discriminate news from cherry-picked data, commentary
      and polemicism may need to start in elementary school and continue on
      into college. Local community groups should offer refresher courses
      for those who finished their formal education ages ago.

      We need to accept that the definition of news is morphing - as is its
      delivery and quality. Increasingly, it's up to all of us to choose
      our sources of that continuing education wisely.
      Print
      |
      Comment

      --
      --
      37 Years of Environmental Service to Small Tropical Islands
      --
      Island Resources Foundation Fone 202/265-9712
      1718 "P" St NW, # T-4 fax 202/232-0748
      Washington, DC 20036 Potter cell: 1-443-454-9044
      -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
      -- -- -- -- -
      Subscribe to environmental e-mail groups at
      <http://www.irf.org/help/email.php >
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Blogs at http://pottersweal.wordpress.com/; TWITTER: brucepotter
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.