Still going with my general trend of reporting on ScienceOnline 2012 by working backwards, I’m going to quasi-summarize the panel discussion, The Sticky Wicket of the Scientist-Journalist Relationship, which closed out the conference. The panel members were David Kroll, Bora Zivkovic, Maggie Koerth-Baker and Seth Mnookin, which means it was slanted toward the journalist point of view, but it was indeed interesting to get that perspective.
Out of the gate, Maggie Koerth-Baker set the tone about the journalist perspective: I am not your goddam stenographer. I don’t trust you implicitly and I don’t want to be a fanboy. (That’s a paraphrase, but pretty close to a direct quote). And that’s fair, I think, especially with the recent and laughable query about being fact-vigilantes, one shouldn’t expect any journalists to simply repeat what they are told.
We were also cautioned that the journalist’s motivation for writing an article may not coincide with the scientist’s agenda — don’t assume it is and find out those details. This ties in to the concern of some about being misquoted; even though the journalist probably isn’t out to “get” a scientist, you won’t have a chance to backtrack on your comments. So you should correct yourself immediately if you mis-speak. There was also the suggestion that it’s OK to speak to a reporter off the record, and then agree afterward to allow some comments to be on the record. That gives the scientist some control over the issue.
What was interesting to me was a comment by Seth Mnookin about how scientists are surprised that journalists often don’t check back with the scientist they’ve interviewed and show them the story before it’s published. Some of this is motivated by not wanting to edit quotes, but from my perspective it’s about a concern to get the facts right. My own experience on this is mixed — I’ve been interviewed or involved in email exchanges, and been offered differing levels of opportunity to provide feedback. But I completely understand the scientist position — I think it’s a general desire in the science community that the science be understood correctly, and anyone who has taught knows how often it happens that complex concepts are misunderstood, especially without the feedback. So it is a surprise to me that a journalist would not double-check their story to make sure they got it right. Getting it wrong undermines the credibility of everyone involved, though my personal bias is that when I see obvious errors I am going to assume the scientist knows what s/he is talking about and the journalist screwed it up. That might not always be true, but it’s probably the way to bet.
One the other side of the coin, journalists can get burned by scientists pushing bad science and treating it like peer review, in that they figure a newer story can come along and correct any mistakes. I don’t think much of that approach — scientists have an obligation to make clear what is sound and what is speculation.
Having said all that, I have to agree with what Ed Yong has posted a few days back: Every scientists-versus-journalists debate ever, in one diagram
Basically, good journalists are going to complain about bad scientists and good scientists are going to complain about bad journalists. I know I do. And I don’t praise good science journalism often enough.
Which brings me to the point that I wish I has thought of before the panel discussion ended. Perhaps we have some common ground after all. Maybe we can agree on a problem we have in common: crap story titles. There’s something uniquely frustrating in reading the title of an article and then find out that the article itself doesn’t support the title, or (in some cases) completely contradicts it. It’s usually an editor that did it. I hope that journalists find this as annoying as this scientist does.
Everything and its opposite are true in the social sciences, including economics (e.g., Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and Paul Kruger). Science reportage does not have that slack in its gears. Subjective interpretation in the former is objective error in the later.
After Easter Islanders deforested Easter Island in tribute to their ancestors (via moai), they died. The difference between a microprocessor core and a decorative tie tack is a dust mote during lithography. Science jouralism must do more than displace discrete facts with overall ignorance.
“Sticky Wicket”, really? Were they deliberately trying to sound out of touch with their audience?
It is quite appropriate that a journalist take the position that ” I am not your goddam stenographer. I don’t trust you implicitly and I don’t want to be a fanboy. ” However along with that position comes the obligation to understand the story and report it correctly. Unfortunately many journalists do not have the necessary understanding of scientific fundamentals to make an informed judgment as to whether what they write is accurate or not, but they seem quite competent in formulating stories designed to titillate.
I have seen very few reports, on any subject, about which I had first-hand knowledge and which were reported accurately. In some cases the reporter has the fall-back position of simply quoting an “expert”. But often that “expert” is no expert at all and simply a vehicle whereby sensational nonsense can be reported without a direct charge of fabrication.
There was once a report on the local TV, by a reporter who specializes in science, that was picked up nationally about work done by a mathematician at the nearby university. I have more than a passing acquaintance with his specific area. After hearing the report, which uncharacteristically was given about 3 minutes of air time, I had not a clue what he had done. I later talked to his department head at a breakfast and asked him about the work. It took him about 5 seconds and one sentence to explain to me completely what had been done. It bore no resemblance whatever to the television report.
What is really needed are journalists with the wherewithal to understand science well enough to be able to discern truth from fantasy and explain the important points of the work in question. Unfortunately that may make for somewhat dry reporting with may not stimulate sales. So it really comes down to a question of priorities — does the reporting industry wish to place emphasis on sales or on accuracy of reporting. Unfortunately the de facto answer seems to be the former.
It seems that those who write press releases are little better than ordinary reporters, but perhaps if scientists dealt in press releases rather than simply giving interviews they might exercise a bit more control.
In the meantime I will tend to take all popular reporting with more than a grain of salt and seek out information originating with the investigator himself. One ArXiv preprint is worth a ream of reports in the popular press.