Janet Stemwedel and Chad Orzel have each written excellent posts on the necessity of improving science journalism. Janet argues that what's needed is to improve science education:
If there were an actual clamor for science reporting that was detailed, informative, and grounded in fact -- a clamor not just from scientists but from the people, speaking in large numbers -- then news organizations would have no choice but to provide it, lest they lose their audience (and ad revenue) to someone who would. Right?
Right! Of course we need a more educated public. Then journalists would be forced to improve. But that doesn't do much to solve the problem we face today: as Chad notes, "It's definitely hard to present science in a way that is comprehensible to the general public without being misleading."
I agree with both of their points, but I have a third point: The problem isn't so much the science journalists. It's with all those other journalists out there who must occasionally report on science.
Consider my local newspaper: the Charlotte Observer. Sure, they do a fine job reporting on local issues, such as frying Coke. (Sorry, couldn't resist that link. They really do report on things like education sometimes.)
The problem is, they don't have a dedicated science section at all. None. So when something "sciencey" happens, they have to assign it to a regular beat reporter. They actually did a pretty good job when global warming naysayer Richard Lindzen came to town, pointing out that his was a minority view. But the only quote they actually give was from a local science teacher, who was, unfortunately, convinced by Lindzen's spiel:
"What I got out of tonight is how uncertain the field of climatology is," said Jeremy Mattson, who teaches earth science at Concord High School. "And people don't like uncertainty."
For "balance," the reporter does give us the "other side," which includes some details from the IPCC findings on climate change. But there's no explanation of how these findings refute Lindzen's claims. It would have been better to quote an actual scientist, but this isn't an eggregious example of bad science reporting.
When there's really big science news, however, the Observer simply doesn't have the resources to report on it. They'll use wire reports, perhaps, but offer little context for those reports. They can't -- or don't -- provide extended coverage of an issue like, say, Bush's bizarre policy proclamation on stem cell research. Perhaps this is simply a demand problem, as Janet suggests, since there is plenty of (usually) good science reporting at places like the New York Times. Surely they'd be willing to let the Observer run with their coverage, for a price.
But in the end, the Observer doesn't offer that coverage, either because they're underestimating their readers, or because their editorial staff doesn't understand how important it is. Again, there's no easy solution to this problem, but as Janet suggests, more education is always a good start.
- Log in to post comments
This is an excellent point, and another example of the broader forces at work when it comes to inaccurate reportage. Many years ago, at a press briefing at a physics conference, I sat next to a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. It was her first assignment on the "science beat"; previously, she'd done in-depth coverage of the Middle East, and done it very well. She was highly intelligent (and educated, with two master's degrees), very professional, but completely lost at being thrust unceremoniously into a physics press conference on condensed matter physics with zero preparation. Her coverage was, in the ed, better than the average newswire might put out, but only because she put in a lot of extra effort to compensate for her lack of preparation.
Local newspapers have limited budgets and smaller staffs, so it's expected that they'll have to "double up" when assigning beats to reporters (much like high school physics teachers don't always have degrees in physics). But this is the Wall Street Journal... say what you will about its obvious biases, it has the wherewithal to hire experienced science reporters, or at least to give a newly assigned reporter some appropriate background preparation before throwing him/her to the wolves. The fact that the WSJ editors didn't think science was important enough to do this -- well, it speaks volumnes, doesn't it?
I might also note that the LA Times and Dallas Morning News -- both of which had top-notch science sections in the heady days of KC Cole and Tom Siegfried, respectively -- both killed those sections outright and now rarely report on anything other than the most innocuous health news and the odd bits of technology.
The point (I guess) being that this isn't a bunch of individual incidents... they amount to a very bad major trend. Better education might indeed be the best place to start... beginning with instilling a greater respect and appreciation for science and scientists, i.e., that it is deserving of careful, thorough coverage in the press, compared to dhastily dashed off articles under deadline. You can do that with light human interest pieces about deep-fried Coke (ew!) -- unless you're like and instantly want to delve into what's going on at the chemical/molecular scale. :)
I definitely agree. There is not sufficient scientific literacy exhibited in the press. The editors play a big role in that also. They often write or revise the headlines that go with articles. So, the article may actually be scientifically sound, but the headline doesn't match the research described within. For example, I have collected a number of links to popular press articles at
http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation…
Many of the headlines are causal in nature even though the research described within is correlational or descriptive. I use these examples in class in a variety of ways to promote a little more critical thinking in my students.
Here's a thought: what if PhD programs in science actually promoted the idea of a career in science journalism as a LEGITIMATE career for someone with a PhD?
In grad school, I had a good friend who ended up going that route - after she was drummed out of her PhD program. She was someone who was passionate about science but she was never mentored and was just left to drift and stutter and flounder in the lab until she finally left before she was asked to leave. She found a career for herself as a science reporter and is fabulous at it. She even did some reporting for Science. But everyone I knew looked upon her as a failure. No one, absolutely no one, looked upon what she did as a legitimate career path or desirable career path or on her as a career success.
And I am NOT saying "let's send our failures to science reporting!" Because, first of all, I don't see my friend as a failure. I see that the system failed her.
Second of all, I think we should send some of our very best students to do science reporting. The public deserves no less. And science reporters should be trained scientists, just as science teachers should be trained scientists. Maybe you don't necessarily have to get a PhD to be a science reporter. But I think you should get a master's degree. And then a graduate journalism degree. Or maybe a combined six year program in science and journalism. Something similar for teaching. But what's so bad about a PhD? A lot of us here at Sb.com have or are pursuing PhDs - and I think what we are doing is a form of science journalism.
Okay, I suppose I'm just dreaming. But in my world, that's how it will work.
Here are two more good articles on science reporting:
Columbia Journalism Review by Mooney and Nisbet
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp
Follow up by Nisbet
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/id/