Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
The past and future of science journalism
Share:
by Alfred Hermida | February 19, 2008 at 11:57 am
359 views | 20 Recommendations | 4 comments
Boston is hosting a symposium on the Future of Science Journalism, to mark the 25th anniversary of the Knight science fellowships at MIT.
The event was kicked off by Boyce Rensberger, director of the fellowships programme, looking back at the historical relationship between science and journalism.
Hearing about the early days of science journalism, it is remarkable how it has developed from the gee-whizz, uncritical reporting of discoveries to a more analytical approach.
Boyce recalled that the National Association of Science Writers, set up in the 1930s in the US, operated somewhat like a cult. For example, one proposal floated at the time was that only NASW members should be able to write about science. From the start, science writers behaved as if they were different from other journalists.
This sounds laughable and antiquated now, but it reflects the early approach to science, when journalists were naive about the promise of science and acted like cheerleaders of science.
The change came along in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when science journalists started questioning whether, as Boyce put it, they should be the lap dogs or the watch dogs of science.
This period marked the transition of science journalists from being journalists first and foremost. Boyce recalled that this was also the golden age of science reporting, with many newspapers launching dedicated science sections or pages.
“It’s all been downhill since then,” joked Boyce to some nervous laughter. No one will disagree that the golden age of science journalism is over.
Looking briefly to the next 25 years, Boyce noted that the profession will be very different to what it is now, just like current science journalism is very different to the early days of science writing.
In a future where scientists can take their work directly to the public, added Boyce, “I’d like to think there will always be a role for professionally-edited media.”
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 13:54 on February 19th, 2008
Interesting post, Alfred. I remember when Seed magazine launched several years ago with the goal of trying to make science news "sexy". It seemed the only possible way to make science journalism appealing to a wide audience...and it seems to have worked. The magazine is, at least, still going. I wonder what will happen to Popular Science, let alone the science sections of other major magazines and printed media?
at 14:05 on February 19th, 2008
There appears to be a push back to the "antiquated" days of elitism - but in this case, scientists are taking it upon themselves to report on other's scientific research. Although in its infancy, various programs have been popping up (like SEED's ScienceBlogs, and BPR3's Researchblogging.org) which have seen some flavors of success.
Personally, I think scientists should take the responsibility of ensuring the academy maintains credibility and trustworthiness.
at 08:37 on February 22nd, 2008
When I
said I hoped there would always be a role for professionally edited media, I
was certainly not trying to revive the bad old days of science journalism
elitism. I was implying that professional editors perform a useful service for the public by gathering, verifying and organizing information into forms that people can easily obtain and understand. Those who have the time to trawl the Web for hours hoping to find the truth about some new development are welcome to do so. Many of us have other claims on our time and are happy to have the service, especially in fields about which we lack deep personal knowledge.
Scientists are, indeed, increasingly reporting to the public on their research (a trend I noted in my talk). That can be fine if you just want to learn science. But if you want to contemplate the wider effects of some new science or technology, you often need expertise from a different source. That's something a good journalist or editor will always want to seek out and tap and write up in a form that a wide variety of readers can grasp.
at 14:54 on February 23rd, 2008
But if you want to contemplate the wider effects of some new science or
technology, you often need expertise from a different source.
I agree - I guess I imagine the good ol' days of science, where scientists did have a solid grasp of the wider implications of their work, and did present them coherently and understandably to the public (think Einstein, Bohr, Hesienberg, who were as much philosophers as they were scientists).
I think the difference that journalists often cite to exist between scientists and the rest of society (i.e. I often hear journalists or media types say, "Scientists generally suck at explaining their work to the general public. Hell, they can barely explain it to people in their field.") is either overinflated or plain untrue - but I could just be naive, or have great mentors.