Category Archives: Journalism

Finding a Common Enemy

Posted on by

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.

What She Said

Posted on by

why i’m terrified (but excited) about science online 2012

All of the pre-#scio12 chatter has picked up in recent weeks, and now that we’re entering the final countdown, I’m (thankfully) recovered enough from a nasty respiratory infection to tune in again. The problem is that tuning in at all is like a highly addictive drug: I get a taste and I want more. You people are going to make me into a junkie.

I, too have been distracted by an illness (a nasty cold) and am just emerging to deal with all the last-minute details of going to ScienceOnline2012. I’m excited because last year was a lot of fun and this year promises even more. Last year pumped me up, blogging-enthusiasm-wise, and it lasted for a few months. So I’m looking for that same kind of score this year.

Because of my cold I don’t have posts in the queue yet, and I don’t expect to have a lot of free time, so things may go quiet.

The View from Nowhere

Posted on by

The View from Nowhere: Questions and Answers

In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.
…
[I]t has unearned authority in the American press. If in doing the serious work of journalism–digging, reporting, verification, mastering a beat–you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority. It may even add to it. The View from Nowhere doesn’t know from this.

That’s in the context of politics, where you have two (or possibly more) opinions or ideologies. It’s worse in science, where the rush to be in between (i.e. nowhere) means you move away from where the evidence is, and can give undeserved weight to groundless rants.

Getting One's House in Order

Posted on by

Science: A New Mission to Explain

A recent BBC analysis of its science coverage in its own news reports revealed that 75% came from press releases, and only a tiny fraction contained views not expressed in those press releases.

This lip service is not good enough, and editors should wise up that science journalism has lost its edge and demand reform. It has also become uncritical and therefore not journalism. Too many who profess to practice journalism are the product of fashionable science communication courses that have sprung up in the past fifteen years. It’s my view that this has resulted in many journalists being supporters of, and not reporters of, science. There is a big difference.

Good points. The irony is that this is from the Huffington Post, which has a reputation for reporting and supporting some dodgy medical science, such as antivax tripe and homeopathy.

Make it So

Posted on by

What If There Were Rules for Science Journalism?

The media were not solely responsible for the MMR scare, but some of the news values that caused the problem are alive and well: the appetite for a great scare story; the desire to overstate a claim made by one expert in a single small study; the reluctance to put one alarming piece of research into its wider, more revealing context; journalistic “balance”—which creates the impression of a significant divide in scientific opinion where there is none; the love of the maverick; and so on.

It's Not Just Energy

Posted on by

Why energy journalism is so bad

Citing subject matter authorities is a necessary element of journalism, but so is casting a critical eye on what they say. Unfortunately, most journalists repeat what their selected authorities say verbatim, and rarely mention contrary views.

While some of the examples cited are specific to energy journalism, overall I think it’s a journalism problem, not an energy journalism (or science journalism) problem. There are far too many examples of journalists being credulous parrots or not checking what they say for reasonability.

Pay No Attention to the Eye in the Sky

Posted on by

The Footage the NFL Won’t Show You

Without the expanded frame, fans often have no idea why many plays turn out the way they do, or if the TV analysts are giving them correct information. On a recent Sunday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Alex Smith threw a deep pass to tight end Delanie Walker for a 26-yard touchdown. Daryl Johnston, the Fox color man working the game, said Smith’s throw was “placed perfectly” and that Tampa Bay Buccaneers safety Corey Lynch was “a little bit late getting there.”

Greg Cosell, producer of the ESPN program “NFL Matchup,” who is one of the few people with access to All-22 footage, said the 49ers had purposely overloaded the right side of the field so each receiver would only be covered by one defender. Lynch, the safety, wasn’t late getting there, Cosell says. He was doing his job and covering somebody else. Johnston could not be reached for comment.

I don’t need All-22 to know that announcers are talking crap. Just hearing them say, “Let’s see if they were drawn offsides” is enough to do that — false start penalties kill the play. If there’s no whistle, there’s no false start, and they should know this. What I suspect is that one would immediately know the slew of “He ran the pattern too short” comments, heard when a player runs an underneath route (e.g. 8 yard pattern on 3rd-and-10) would be shown to be crap as well. The film would likely show that a deeper route would have been covered, and the only way to be open was to run underneath. Sometimes you have to break a tackle or make a man miss.

As for the possibility of more criticism of coaches and players, I don’t care. Rumor has it that they’re adults. Maybe the fans will understand that part of the plan is to fake the other side out and appreciate the nuances of trying to dictate your opponent’s response tactics.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Posted on by

The Great Global Warming Fizzle

As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Any time science gets compared to religion it just, as Dean Keaton might say, makes me tired all over. It’s where you go when you can’t actually discuss science, because you have nothing.

It Worked the First Time

Posted on by

“Climategate” Redux: Conservative Media Distort Hacked Emails … Again

Anonymous hackers recently released another batch of emails taken from a climate research group at the University of East Anglia in 2009, along with a document containing numbered excerpts of purportedly incriminating material. Many of these selections have been cropped in a way that completely distorts their meaning, but they were nonetheless repeated by conservative media outlets who believe climate change is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.”