…and this is a 
Science journalists, you really piss me off…at least some of you. Here are a couple of headlines about that recent paper I summarized that make me want to slap someone.
"Eye evolution questioned." No, it's not. That's just trying to stir up a non-existent controversy. The eye evolved. This was a paper exploring the details of how specific photoreceptor types with the eye evolved. (I should mention that the summary is OK, but the headline was stupid. Maybe I ought to slap the editor.)
"Ancient Origins of the Human Eye Discovered." Aaargh, it's a paper about brachiopods, not humans, and it's about the evolution of protostomes as well as deuterostomes…it's about the whole frackin' animal kingdom, not just our self-exalted little twig.
Both of those headlines are about the very same paper, and I get the impression the reporters hadn't even read it, but instead relied on teasing out comprehensible angles from interviews. We ought to have a rule: if you can't read the research and comprehend it, you shouldn't be writing about it. I know, suddenly 9/10ths of the science journalists in the world are abruptly unemployed.
Ben Goldacre offers some excellent commentary on this problem. Read it if you're hoping to be a professional science communicator. I agree with him: you don't need a Ph.D., but you do have to have some knowledge of the field you are reporting on, and most importantly, a passion to learn more about it.
Comments
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
March 15, 2011 10:35 AM
Good luck with that. From what I hear, jobs are scarce and the pay is terrible in that field these days. I wouldn't mind trying it out myself, as I'm currently a technical writer.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 10:38 AM
Is that the problem, or is the problem that they're journalists, first and foremost?
If your job is to tease out or manufacture a controversy to sell to the public, your education (or lack thereof) isn't going to make much of a difference.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 15, 2011 10:40 AM
Interesting that this is the new definition for Journalists.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 15, 2011 10:42 AM
In a technical sense, true. Because the old story of eye evolution is being questioned via this discovery.
Of course it's far too broad a claim as it would be understood by many. But I'm sure they'd defend it on the narrower grounds regardless.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: mordachaiwolf
|
March 15, 2011 10:43 AM
You may enjoy SMBC's take on "Science Journalism"
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
March 15, 2011 10:43 AM
Good point, Brownian. Are you writing to stir up controversy or communicate the truth to your readers? The two are not mutually exclusive, but can be. I'm firmly in the "education" camp, FWIW.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 10:44 AM
From Ben's blog:
Like, in what other fucking field would you not get smacked across the fucking head for saying something as clearly doltish as this?
"Hi. I'm inturestd in teeching anatomy at your mecidal school. You know I'm sooted to the task because I droped out of school after the 6th grayd and I'm too scueemish to even cook chickun. This makes me a grate communicator."
This is why we're all kinds of fucked up. Goddamn media.
Posted by: nathaniel.tagg
|
March 15, 2011 10:47 AM
To my mind, a journalist needs to have roughly the same training as a high school science teacher - they need to know how to explain the basics to a lay audience.
To my mind, a high school science teacher needs to have a meaningful degree in the sciences. A smattering of intro college courses is useless for instilling any sense of the scope and breadth of the field, or showing why the intro college courses are useful.
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
March 15, 2011 10:49 AM
Brownian: I took a Journalism class with a Writing major classmate that told me he hated to write...
One wonders WTH he was doing there. I hope he changed his major somewhere along the way or someone got a terrible employee...
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 15, 2011 10:51 AM
@Question Authority
"Yes that's me, marine biologist, though between you and me I actually hate whales...especially Mushu"~Futurama
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 10:52 AM
Was there an old one that differed?
Posted by: Carl Zimmer
|
March 15, 2011 10:53 AM
It's always important in these situations to bear in mind that reporters almost never write their own headlines.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
March 15, 2011 10:53 AM
Journalists, especially the copy editors (who write the headlines) are expected to have a degree in journalism, communications or English. The pay is awful - less than a teacher makes.
If any journalist had a degree in biology, chemistry or physics, he or she would immediately leave journalism and double or triple his pay.
If you want more, you have to pay more.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 15, 2011 10:56 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with the new definition.I just think we used to have at least some Journalists we could "trust" with reporting the events instead of helping to create them.
Posted by: jfbode1029
|
March 15, 2011 11:02 AM
A big problem with science journalists is when they're brought in to provide commentary on something they clearly know nothing about; they just wind up stuttering and equivocating instead of imparting useful information. Instead of saying up front, "you know, I don't have any expertise in this field, let's talk to _____ who knows far more about this than me," they feel they have to say some bullshit to justify their pay.
NPR's Joe Palca is clearly out of his depth with what's happening at the Fukushima reactors; every time they bring him on the air to comment on the latest developments, it's the same old "uh, uh, uh, well, uh, y-you know, it's uh, still uh, still not clear, uh, what exactly's, uh, uh, happening..."
That's okay when the story's initially breaking, but after four days you'd think they'd have an actual expert in nuclear energy on the horn.
Not that they'd give him more than 20 seconds to explain the finer points of decay heat.
Posted by: dgerard
|
March 15, 2011 11:06 AM
The important point about Ben Goldacre saying something is that he's not a scientist - he's a working doctor by day. He's writing as a good science journalist talking to the bad ones.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 11:10 AM
One of my friends is a newspaper copyeditor. The hours are weird, and she doesn't really like the work, but one thing she does to keep things interesting is to put jokes in the headlines. Usually, they're inside jokes. It's a game she plays to see what they'll let fly as a headline. They almost never ask her to change anything.Nothing to do with science journalism. Just a glimpse into the newspaper industry.
It appears no one is copyediting the copyeditors...
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 11:12 AM
I've been told that that was the case. I cannot confirm or deny this.
The people who do are jerkfaces as well.
Posted by: Chaos Cryptic
|
March 15, 2011 11:14 AM
scueemish
Brownian! OW! I know that's deliberate and all, but I swear I heard the actual sound of nails on a chalkboard when I read that!
I'm sad to learn from this thread that science journalism isn't a very career-friendly field. I kind of thought science communication might be a good option for me in the future. :(
Posted by: Zeno
|
March 15, 2011 11:17 AM
I did a stint as a science journalist. My editor was concerned that I was "a detail person." He wanted "big picture."
I never had an editor change one of my stories without the introduction of some error or inaccuracy. Just doing their job, I guess.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 11:18 AM
I fucking hate that attitude.I've worked as a technical writer, and one of the things you learn pretty damn quickly is that you have major, gaping holes in your understanding of that shit (unless your degree is in a related field) and that you need your technical specialist or subject matter expert to recheck everything you write. They aren't the ones with the writing skills--you are. But they are the ones with the technical understanding. You attempt to communicate for them, not to claim expertise yourself.
Why can't the science journalism industry do what engineering firms do and hire subject matter experts (they can even be consultants, not full-time employees) to double-check the fucking facts of the article? It wouldn't take more than a few hours total (unless your journalist was a complete idiot).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 11:19 AM
It's unfortunate, because there are some outstanding writers who do a hell of a lot to communicate science effectively, such as the comment writer @ #12 (whose books I devour. Cr♥sh.)
Bill Bryson, who has little to no background in science (AFAIK), is even more accessible (if prone to the occasional error.)
Posted by: Hemogoblin
|
March 15, 2011 11:21 AM
However, for the most part it seems that science journalists don't even have a high school education in science. If I had a dollar for every time a journalist swallowed pseudoscientific woo whole when just 7th grade chemistry would have been enough to disprove it, I would be a rich man...The coverage of the Fukushima situation has really brought home to me how bad journalists are at conveying technical information. If, for some reason, you can find any technical details in an article, they are usually so mangled as to be complete nonsense (e.g. stating radiation intensities in Sv - not Sv-per-something, just plain Sv).
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
March 15, 2011 11:21 AM
PZ says:
YES! THIS!!!
A thousand times this!!! Far too often otherwise decent scientific articles are hijacked and betrayed by tabloid-type, eye-catching but inaccurate and unfortunate headlines. And this (usually) falls almost entirely on the shoulders of the editors.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
March 15, 2011 11:26 AM
Brownian -
"scueemish"...
You moron... that's not how you spell that. The "x" is silent.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 11:30 AM
It was my copy editor. Yeah, that's it; my copy editor. My comment was perfect before I submitted it to somebody else to screw up.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 15, 2011 11:37 AM
Well what do you expect when journalism has to compete with entertainment. I think the problem runs deeper than poor pay and education on the part of the writers. A public that is only interested in high drama doesn't know how to recognize the excitement that genuine discovery represents.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 11:38 AM
*shuffles feet*Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
March 15, 2011 11:42 AM
I used to do science journalism...or sorts...at a physics trade publication. We were writing for fellow physicists mainly, so we did not have the problem of "dumbing it down" as such. Surprisingly, though, readers often did object to equations.
This was a neat job in a lot of ways. Every month you had to master a new field sufficiently well that you could discuss research with Nobel Laureates without looking like a complete idiot. Unfortunately, we often got little respect from our fellow physicists (we weren't doing research after all), and we got absolutely no support from the member societies for whom we wrote. After 3 years of making diddly squat and watching administrative support dwindle, I went out and got a job in Aerospace--increasing my pay by 70% in the process despite having no previous experience in the field I'd be working in. Fifteen years later, I can say I probably made the right move. I'd have been too frustrated working in an environment that penalized the "good" for being more than "good enough". I face the same lack of commitment to quality in my current day job, but at least I make twice as much money.
Should a science journalist be able to read the science he/she is writing about? Well, there are two schools of thought about that. I think it is a significant advantage. However, one time I was discussing this with San Francisco Chronicle science reporter David Perlman. Perlman felt that if he understood the material a lot better than his readers, he could not convey the information at the proper level. He had a rolodex (and yes, it was a rolodex) bursting at the seams of people he could call--experts he trusted on any conceivable subject. They would explain patiently until he understood. Even here, though, you need to understand enough to know who you can trust.
All I know is that science reporting, like all reporting is hurting these days. Not only do journalists fail to understand how to convey scientific ideas to the public, they don't even understand the scientific method or that the process of doing science is itself interesting.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 15, 2011 11:42 AM
One wonders what went through the mind of the creator of that first headline. Are they actually a creationist trying intentionally to twist the story? Are they simply trying to be as sensationalist as possible? While this does raise questions about certain details of existing thought on the evolution of the eye, it simultaneously provides yet another very strong piece of evidence that irreducible complexity is bunk. The headline seems to intentionally convey the opposite notion.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 11:47 AM
Wha? Why the hell do people think like this? A good writer will be able to write to their audience.The fuck is wrong with all these professional writers needing the talisman of ignorance in order to be able to do their fucking jobs?
I'm a writer. I've also been a teacher. Having knowledge and understanding does not harm your ability to communicate effectively if you are a decent communicator.
Posted by: sultmhoor
|
March 15, 2011 11:51 AM
The news cycle has become shorter and shorter in recent years, as well. Quality has gone down markedly from that fact alone.
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 15, 2011 11:56 AM
Former science journalist here.
1. The headline is NEVER the responsibility of the writer of the article. Copy editors are assigned copy FIFO, so any copy editor can handle any piece of copy. Some are good, some not so good. But it's not just science journalism the the copy editors screw up. I had direct experience of a copy editor inserting the word "NOT" into the following phrase: "Dr. Edward Jackson was found guilty of..." That little bit of 'editing' cost the paper a recall of the first edition. And the copy editor kept her job!
2. It's all nice and stuff to declare that we need to have a grounding in the subjects we report...but it's impractical as all get-out. One day it's biology, the next day it's NASA, the next day it's an oil spill, the next day it's global warming, the next day it's nuclear reactor meltdowns. Same reporter catches all of that. How many of you are so well versed in each and every one of those subjects and more that you would not make a single error in a 1200 word article on the subject created in the space of maybe three to four hours (or less)? Every day, twice a day, 50 weeks of the year. Didn't think so.
3. The money is better than teaching, but not by much. At the higher levels (bigger papers, national magazines), it's actually pretty decent.
Posted by: MaxwellNC
|
March 15, 2011 11:56 AM
I'd love to be a science writer. In the university where I work, I took the three flagship graduate courses in the science journalism program, one of the tops in the country. The job prospects suck. No money, little opportunity anywhere unless you're willing to live on poverty wages until you make it big.
It was very depressing in another way too. Not one of my classmates in all three courses had a BS. I felt I was surrounded by amateurs, and these are the ones who want to do this for a living. I think I'll stay in the lab a little longer.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 11:58 AM
Sure, but how do we break that cycle? (And keep in mind that it can be broken, as I'm sure a great majority of the commenters would be more likely to squeal with excitement at a chance meeting with Ben Goldacre than Simon Cowell.)
At the very least, the media has to stop washing its hands clean, claiming they're just delivering what the public wants.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 12:08 PM
A journalist needs to be well enough acquainted with science to be able to identify a good source. It's impractical for a journalist to be an expert in every subject they may be asked to cover. It's not impractical for them to be expected to have enough understanding to tell wheat from chaff and to know who to trust. But, again, a lot of the trouble is with the stupid headlines. I've seen headlines that were in direct opposition to the content of an article, and I've seen headlines that were nothing but a great big helpin' of WTF. They just weren't related at all. Makes me wonder if folks were doing what my friend does and just assing around on the job.I'm sad about all the hatin' that's going on here towards copyeditors. But I'm just going to remind myself that I work for the good guys (well...relatively speaking regarding this subject) and pretend that none of this applies to me.
(It actually really doesn't. I don't write titles or headlines, and I'm extremely conscientious about any changes I make. I always query the author if there's any question.)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
March 15, 2011 12:10 PM
Jules,
First, Perlman was an excellent science writer. Second, a significant difference in the level of understanding of the writer to that of the audience can cause the former to misapprehend where the latter will get hung up. It can also mean that the reporter misses aspects of the story that would interest the reader because he sees them as "trivial". Third, a good, experienced reporter like Perlman knows what quesitons to ask. Finally, what Perlman brought to any story was interest and curiosity. I think that is what is really missing from most science reporting today--the reporters themselves aren't interested.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 15, 2011 12:10 PM
I'm blaming Jules specifically.
For everything
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 15, 2011 12:16 PM
@Kevin - Easy there, Sparky. Getting a tad defensive. I don't think anyone expects science journalists to never screw up, or to be an expert in every field. This isn't about minor errors. There are far too many cases of science journalists getting the fundamental nature of what they're reporting on completely wrong, that's a different matter entirely, and I'm sure you never did that. True mastery, say at the PhD level, requires a very narrow scope, so it's certainly not to be expected of a science journalist. What's being said is that science journalists should care enough about science to try to get it right, and they should have a firm scientific foundation in their education. That won't make them an expert on every field, but it should enable them to read and understand papers reasonably well, and to talk intelligently to scientists in a variety of fields. It should at least enable them to ask the right questions and not mischaracterize(Chrome doesn't think that's a word) the answers.
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 15, 2011 12:25 PM
@35...really? So you're saying that the media should deliver what the public doesn't want?
No kidding, I think you should re-evaluate that statement.
A media outlet that delivers what the public does not want goes by a different name -- out of business.
Different audiences want different things. That's why there are magazines for scrap booking, knitting, and cat lovers.
I wouldn't even know how to go about delivering what you're asking for. Any story that I would cover would of necessity be 1. interesting, and 2. important. The balance of the two might teeter-totter back and forth from story to story. But you're basically asking journalists to cover uninteresting (to the general public) stories that are nonetheless important.
I agree that outside of science journalism, the trend is toward interesting stories that lack gravitas. Which is why I don't read magazines that gush on about Justin Beiber. But plenty of people do.
If it's not interesting nor important, I think we can all agree that we can ignore those. How many scientific papers are published each month? I just did a quick PubMed search and found 4152 articles published in the past 30 days. Even if I do two stories a day (the normal output for a reporter working in a daily medium like a large newspaper), that leaves more than 4000 articles uncovered each and every month. Some filter has to be applied. Interest to the general public is one of those filters.
But an uninteresting science story that's also important for the general public to know about? Name one.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 12:29 PM
That would be one of the problems. It is often the case, but it shouldn't be. "Science" isn't one subject.
Consider "entertainment" journalism. Some publications have separate reporters who cover hollywood gossip, film, theater, television, food, fashion, visual art, music, fiction and nonfiction, etc. Sometimes those broad categories are further sub-divided, like reporters who do the pop/rock beat versus those who cover classical music. It may be "inefficient" according to some standards, but the fact remains that a lot of resources are going to many reporters who each cover a small niche in entertainment/culture news. I have no problem with that at all, except that scientific subjects deserve and require even more resources than they're currently getting. If it's a zero-sum game, then we would lose some resources in entertainment (or politics, business, etc.).
The fact is every subject requires a competent, knowledgeable reporter if it's to be covered properly -- although what is "proper" for a gossip columnist is beyond my understanding. Some subjects I could care less about; but for those I do, I expect the journalist to know more than I do. If they don't, then nothing worthwhile is being reported. That's when I stop reading them.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 15, 2011 12:30 PM
@Kevin - Really, in your defensiveness you're jumping to overly broad conclusions about what people are saying. It's not about you. Let's assume you're one of the good science journalists. There are still people who are doing it wrong.
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 15, 2011 12:32 PM
@39...name one science journalist who you think isn't interested in getting the story right.
Yes, my former ox is being gored here. But I think everyone piles on thinking that all science journalists are just hacks in it for the glory and the bucks.
After your 100th byline, the glory doesn't mean much. And the bucks aren't that great.
Are there hacks who would be better off doing something else? Sure. Are there hack physicists, biologists, teachers, politicians, police officers, ditch diggers, roofing contractors? You betcha.
Tarring an entire profession with a mostly undeserved criticism is not logical.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 12:36 PM
Not if you're a good writer with a solid understanding of your audience. The idea that ignorance helps you communicate better because you can be inside your audience's head is just silly. All you have to do is remember what it was like to be ignorant (which you surely were at some point) and write from there.But it sounds as if he wasn't really talking about being as ignorant as his audience anyway. If he knew enough to know which questions to ask and who to ask, then he was way ahead of the public. He was probably referring more to his position as a writer and not a technical expert. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a better understanding or that he doesn't need it. He's probably just referring to being broadly literate instead of specialized.
But he should watch pushing the notion of ignorance as relatability. Sure, people can lose the forest for the trees, but that doesn't mean they should bury their heads in the sand until someone knocks 'em in the ass with a branch.
Seriously. We make teachers get degrees in this shit. If ignorance helped you relate better, why the hell would we do that?
But, as I said, I don't think Perlman was actually ignorant (from your description). I think he was just latching onto a romantic Everyman notion and being humble because he knew he wasn't a scientist. In other words, he was misattributing his success to his lack of knowledge instead of to his ability to communicate and share his love of the subjects. A lot of people do that because they are uncomfortable taking credit for their talent. Also, he probably didn't realize just how dumb the public is.
Probably the most important feature, really. One of the things I love about the copyediting work I do is that I get to learn about so many new things. If a journalist is interested in actually learning, they will, and they'll convey that to their audience. It certainly doesn't require massive technical expertise at the outset.Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 12:39 PM
Rev, there is no way I'm taking the fall for your typo issues :-P
Posted by: scornucopia
|
March 15, 2011 12:40 PM
A different symptom, but the same underlying cause — dilettantism — as what Pinker calls the Igon Value Problem — “when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.”
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 12:42 PM
Exactly. I think most of the time, it's not a case of dumbing-down to the audience, but the fact that the reporters and editors need to smarten-up. Of course they're not going to (publicly) recognize their own incompetence. Instead, they'll fall back on the dumbing-down defense, or framing an issue for sensitive readers, or the supply-and-demand defense of giving them what they want. Anything at all will do, as long as they aren't held responsible for being crappy journalists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 15, 2011 12:43 PM
damn it
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 12:49 PM
Now that's just fucking depressing to think about.Not so much that those categories exist, but that they exist while the science section struggles.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
March 15, 2011 1:06 PM
I know David was not arguing for reporting from ignorance. However, think about your own research. You've been working on a problem for a year, during which time you've made hundreds of little breakthroughs that might not have been obvious at the time. There is no way you can report all of them in your paper. Which ones can you leave out? Sometimes I find I simply have to write things up as best I can and then give the paper to a reader (usually my poor wife) to see where they get stuck. And since not all readers are equal, I probably need to run it by a few readers.
OTOH, if I'm trying to understand an area I am unfamiliar with, I can, if I know how to ask the right questions, consult the experts and report on my process of discovery.
The thing is that I've seen both approaches work. I've seen both fail. What is essential for either are twin passions--to understand and to communicate that understanding. That is what is missing from most science journalism--just as it is missing from most science teaching.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 15, 2011 1:20 PM
Sounds to me like a journalist who argues that they need to understand at the level of their audience rather than the level of their source is rationalizing their personal lack of interest or inherent laziness. Do none of these people have children? Or even talk to children? Understanding a level of understanding that I have gone through is most certainly possible for me and is a large part of why I enjoy teaching subsets of my knowledge base to beginners. I don't know if mastery is necessary, but having a deep understanding of a topic enables more possible angles of explanation, different anologies, and the opportunity to work around common misconceptions of the material. I don't want science written by a person with my level of understanding I want science written to a person of my level of understanding.
___
Brownian,
I know it's a societal problem and likely unfixable via a narrow solution, but to tie in with the teacher thread: spend more money on education. Make it a societal priority from the government into the most impressionable of our population. Get kids excited about learning, more to the point, keep them excited about learning. Five year olds want to learn, we need more post high school people who care to continue.
I have to think that more people who actually want good science reporting would exert pressure for the field to become better. Change the demand and the supply should follow.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
March 15, 2011 1:31 PM
And what did he say when you asked him what sense that was supposed to make?
What the fuck?
Over here, genuwhine nookular physicists are invited onto the TV evening news, and they're interviewed for several minutes each time.
...Oh.
I see. I'm talking about a public-owned TV channel. You're talking about a for-profit one.
Two words: 1) Hulk, 2) smash.
It's circular, of course. The media deliver what they think the public wants, and in doing so they set trends, create fashions, and influence what the public wants from them.
"Public opinion" and "published opinion"...
Hey, cool. If someone crucifies her now, we can all go to heaven. :-)
Bingo.
Surprisingly, lots of people find that very hard. Teaching, and science journalism should of course be considered teaching, is a skill that can and should be taught to future teachers (including journalists).
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
March 15, 2011 1:38 PM
@a_ray-in_dilbert_space:
I'd love to work in Aerospace...I came out of the airlines and got a BS in Tech Writing. Used to write airline manuals. These days, I'm exiled in IT Siberia.
The things we do to pay the the mortgage...
Posted by: justawriter
|
March 15, 2011 2:08 PM
So for all you would be journalism critics, answer this question in six words or less: why should I care enough to read this story? That is what the headline is supposed to do. 99 percent of the population would say "Obscure bug has weird eyes" if they read the paper and pass over it to get to the sports section. It's not easy to draw general readers in, especially under deadline pressure. I would also add that the profession actively selects against people who could make much better money for less work (which is nearly everything except for a very favored few).
Another datapoint for this discussion is that many writing jobs will require a journalism degree so my biology degree means my application will be tossed even with my eight years of daily newspaper experience and four years other professional writing experience. It ticks me off to no end.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 15, 2011 2:18 PM
Justawriter,
I am by no stretch a writer, but some ideas:
How animals came to see
Origin of eyes sees new light
Seeing further into the past.
I don't know, really I just think that more people should care in the first place. We shouldn't need to trick people into reading about science.
Posted by: pdblouin
|
March 15, 2011 2:19 PM
You want a Journalist who knows science?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo
Potholer54, no degree in science! But he does one hell of a job.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 2:24 PM
If it doesn't line up with the content of the article, do you think they're going to keep reading? Do you think that it doesn't leave a bad taste in readers' mouths when a science journalist gets something really wrong (or a headline writer)?Refer back to the Jonah Lehrer threads if you need any evidence that the shoddy reporting has negative consequences for the public's view of science.
It makes people view science as being untrustworthy. I'd rather them gloss over something that is "boring" than get pissed off over being misled and write the whole of science off as being "no better than guessing."
People wonder why the public isn't more interested in science. It's because they don't know what the fuck it even is, and the news agencies are not helping.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 2:33 PM
Why should you care to write it if you won't report the story as it is, rather than some other story which will attract readers?
Posted by: MudPuddles
|
March 15, 2011 2:37 PM
Here's one of the better critiques of science journalists out there - unfortunately its spot-on accurate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1
Posted by: casimir.fornalski
|
March 15, 2011 2:37 PM
It is both intellectually and ethically indefensible to knowingly mis-report, under-report, or distort the facts in presenting a story to the audience. This is the responsibility of all journalists, not just ones in the science field.
You simply can not hide behind the "the public doesn't want it" defense if you truly believe there is a power and public interest to the field of journalism. It is callow. Understandable, but callow, nonetheless.
This is why journalism can not be viewed on the same terms as for-profit entertainment. That a news division loses money is not justification for abandoning a standard of integrity. It may be a reason, but it's not a justification. If the public is misled or misinformed about a subject, then the journalist who reported it as such must shoulder a large amount of the blame.
This should be obvious.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 3:01 PM
Look, I actually love science writers—the people who make a career out of writing about science, not a column—and if I had my druthers, you guys would be making enough bucks to hire bodyguards to keep the sex groupies away. Having said that, I'm going to use Kevin's (and others') comments as a ladder from which I can reach all journalists so as to paint them with the same brush (actually, a paint roller on a telescoping pole. C'mon; I am Canadian.)
Sorry, but you'll get no violin-playing from this knowledge generalist.
Besides, we're talking about (at least some) journalists who brag that their ignorance is a virtue.
So, you're either tireless pursuers of the truth, or you're dilettantes. Pick a side and stick to it.
No, I expect journalists to be honest. If you're a whore who panders to the lowest common denominator, then fine: I just don't want to hear any whinging about the long and hallowed integrity of the fourth estate and all that.
Yes, and those people should be eaten. But, isn't it worth considering how attention-grabbing-but-fallacious headlines and articles contribute to creating a populace that's unable to hold a thought long enough to have a second though related to the first?
That sucks, and it's a shame that trained and skilled individuals are being turned away from a field that needs them. Sorry, how is this a defence of journalism again?
Bingo.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 3:13 PM
Seriously, I am so sick of this weaselly bullshit. I provide sensitive data to researchers, and it's my job to provide them with the information they need, and if they don't know what that is, it's also my job to figure it out. I'm not allowed to throw my hands in the air and phone it in because Wal-Mart shoppers exist as a demographic.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 15, 2011 3:19 PM
Brownian,
After being smoked. Gotta make bacon.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 3:23 PM
Sure. Whatever. Just get them off my fucking planet.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
March 15, 2011 3:26 PM
We're talking about journalists here. Journalists. Not entertainers.
A journalist worthy of his craft should be expected to present important news in an interesting manner without distorting the truth.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 3:41 PM
Why, whatever for? If that's the kind of purpose professional writers demand that their craft serve, then it's little wonder they're paid peanuts to provide pablum to imbeciles.
What a stupid fucking challenge.
Perhaps you should consider giving headlines another purpose. One that doesn't produce results that are guaranteed to be either inaccurate or ineffective.
Posted by: drnescio
|
March 15, 2011 3:43 PM
(Shameless-plug alert) This incompetence is not limited to science:
http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/02/propaganda-posing-as-journalism.html
http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-are-overrated-anyway.html
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 15, 2011 3:45 PM
New insight on development of sight?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 3:54 PM
That's not bad. I came up with a generic one for future use:
Issue Oversimplified by Patronising Journalism Majors
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 15, 2011 3:57 PM
Journalists Outraged Over Expectation of Effort
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 3:58 PM
"Believe God Did It or Burn."
That was six words, and it describes why you should care. Do I win a prize or something?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/6vtldlh.tM29ChNAdB4ua8L1gjq1sBU-#693cf
|
March 15, 2011 4:00 PM
I was an English major in college, so, while there's a lot I don't know about science, I do know something about writing. And the the biggest barrier to understanding scholarly writing in any subject is jargon. PZ is certainly right when he says that science journalists have to be able to comprehend the research in a given field before writing about it. Learning the jargon of an academic discipline, whether it's quantum physics or sociology, is a bit like learning a foreign language, but once you get a handle on the jargon, the topic becomes infinitely more understandable. Granted, quantum physics will always be more difficult to grasp (and more useful) than sociology. But it's not impossible for a layman to understand it well enough to describe it accurately to other laymen.
If it's written about in the right way, any topic can be entertaining. In one of Dawkins' books, he spends six pages writing about the evolutionary importance of color-blindness in monkeys (a topic I never imagined I'd find entertaining), and I was absolutely fascinated
Any time I hear somebody say that a non-scientist cannot write coherently about science, I think of Bill Bryson's book, A Short History of Nearly Everything. Granted, Bryson is a difficult comparison for most journalists. First, Bryson's writing is entertaining to read. He's humorous and engaging while still conveying the more serious aspects of his topic with a passion that's difficult to fake. He also researches his topic and employs the help of many experts to make sure he gets things right. Of course, there's certainly not any reason why a science journalist couldn't conduct research and consult experts.
As for those that say the public doesn't want good science journalism, that they want to be entertained rather than informed, I say bullshit. I think people want both. And that's not asking too much. Unfortunately, today's journalism has gotten so bad that most people have lowered their standards to the point that they will find anything acceptable.
But the journalism field as a whole has pretty much turned to shit, so why should science journalism be any different?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 15, 2011 4:00 PM
Help Copy-editor trapped in printing room!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 4:10 PM
Six words sum four year degree?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 4:13 PM
Six words is not enough to
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 4:13 PM
You should hear me describe a testicular cancer exam.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
March 15, 2011 4:18 PM
If Not Read Will Kill Dog
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 4:31 PM
Scientists Discove—Fuck It: Bieber's Easier
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 4:40 PM
Bieber Explains Love, Brachiopod Eye Evolution
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 4:43 PM
You Already Know We Sold Out
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
March 15, 2011 4:50 PM
Hey Hot American Stud! Read This!
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 4:54 PM
Fuckin' Eyes: How Do They Work?
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 15, 2011 4:57 PM
Meet Hot Singles In Your Area
Well, the people who make Facebook ads seem to think it will work.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 4:59 PM
Good idea.
\/ ia gra Online Pharmacy: Make Her Scream!
Hey, just giving the people what they want.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 5:03 PM
Quick link to the endless thread
PZ's got the knack! So this is why bloggers are moving into the niche formerly occupied by professional journalists.
Posted by: Brenden
|
March 15, 2011 5:12 PM
I think that might be more the problem. I had, on occasion, considered science journalism as a career, only to wonder if good, accurate, and honest dissemination would lose out to sensationalist reporting in the job market. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case.
That headline should more properly have read, "Eye evolution questioned? No."
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 15, 2011 5:15 PM
Another piece in eye evolution puzzle >
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 5:18 PM
Not bad Brendan, but we're aiming for six words, and it's gotta soar!
Eye evolution questioned by Charlie Sheen?
Put the 'No' in the article text. And get me pictures of Spider Man committing crimes. I don't care how!
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 5:26 PM
Bieber on Charlie Sheen's Brachiopod Overdose
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 5:28 PM
Dude, can I borrow 20 bucks?
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
March 15, 2011 5:57 PM
How Eye Evolution Impacts Celebrity's Furniture
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 15, 2011 6:01 PM
Eyes: did they evolve for breast-ogling?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 15, 2011 6:05 PM
No Breasts on Brachiopods: Evolution Defeated!
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
March 15, 2011 6:07 PM
The second headline has 7 words.
So you agree with PZ that it is crap?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:11 PM
Eyes: did they evolve for breast-ogling?
breast ogling = longer life = more chances at reproductive success.
answer:
yes.
:P
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:14 PM
Your Penis Too Small? Read This!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:16 PM
... who knew those guys sending me all that junk email were actually science journalists?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 6:29 PM
I Lent You $20 Yesterday. What Happened?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:50 PM
I Lent You $20 Yesterday. What Happened?
Girlfriend is Pregnant. Lend Me $100?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:52 PM
I Lent You $20 Yesterday. What Happened?
that's 7, btw, rule breaker!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 15, 2011 6:55 PM
Hand Dangerously Close to ighsdhnbs8eihhjns hidj
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 15, 2011 6:55 PM
this reminds me...
There's a New Post at 27b/6.
:)
Posted by: EricM
|
March 15, 2011 7:25 PM
I have often considered trying to start a career as a scientific journalist. It pisses me off when I see such blatant mistakes in the non-primary lit. All to often journalists will leave out a qualifying statement that completely changes the scientists' conclusions. I was reading an article the other day about the lizards on that italian island detailing the emergence of cecal valves. The author of the piece stated that the scientists took DNA from a tail biopsy and found no genetic differences between the lizards on the island and the lizards on the mainland. This wasn't true. The scientists only sequenced two short ribosomal genes. They didn't sequence anything in the rest of the genome.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 7:28 PM
A real journalist knows sometimes she has to break the rules to get the good scoop.
Posted by: Rod
|
March 15, 2011 8:32 PM
As an occasional science columnist, and an occasional in-class demonstrator, I may have some experience here. In my column, I try to explore a topic that is in the news or has a local angle, and explain to laymen why ethanol may not be so good in gasoline, or what the Alberta Oilsands are all about. Stuff appears in the news all the time. In Canada a couple of years ago we had a listeria scare, with quite a few deaths. I researched it and wrote an article with the help of my daughter (a biology grad, I am in industrial chemistry) and we received many positive comments.
People have said they enjoy my writing and they find out something... what the hell are probiotics anyway? How can you get energy from seawater (see about a million Youtube videos). At Christmas I did a column on chocolate... I had fun doing it and people responded.
No,I ain't Ben Goldacre or Steven Jay Gould, but I like exploring something in enough depth to write interestingly and intelligently about it.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 15, 2011 9:23 PM
So, where can we read your column, Rod?
Posted by: Rod
|
March 15, 2011 9:31 PM
Used to be the Brockville Recorder and Times, but they pulled the plug as a cost-saving measure. They spilled more in ink than they paid me. Now, for the Brockville Observer, one of those ad-laden freebies that doesn't enjoy huge stature but I do have people say they look forward to it. No pay yet, as it is a fledgling effort... but it is really more of a hobby than a career. Who needs a career when you are retired?
http://www.thebrockvilleobserver.ca/
Posted by: F
|
March 15, 2011 9:58 PM
I've been waiting for blowback on this one:
Function of 'Junk DNA' in Human Genes
and other similarly entitled articles. Why do they do it like that? Idiots!
Posted by: singemonkey
|
March 16, 2011 2:34 AM
"you don't need a Ph.D., but you do have to have some knowledge of the field you are reporting on, and most importantly, a passion to learn more about it."
Why does this even need to be said?
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 16, 2011 7:46 AM
Carl Zimmer | March 15, 2011 10:53 AM:
As a result of this practice, the headline is often the stupidest part of an article - even when the article itself is really, really stupid. Often times, the article goes to press with the equivalent of a fresh turd sitting on its head. Yet another case of an industry-wide practice that is blindingly stupid.
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 16, 2011 8:52 AM
justawriter | March 15, 2011 2:08 PM:
Six Word Limit Reveals Illiteracy.
People who stop reading at six words are not reading news.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton
|
March 16, 2011 10:12 AM
The major problem in the US is - I remember reading a study done in 2008, that was circulated around the newsroom out here in part due to the economic crisis.
On volume, you are getting more news stories per paper than ever before - yet the actual news content is often lower. This is because of the following:
The big trend in US news media at that point was cutting funding for investigative journalism and fact checking, while increasing focus on entertainment and sports.
This produces a high volume of news, but not as much quality. This happens because managers in news companies often don't really follow the news any better than managers in any other field, so they don't think about why they read what the read.
You start reading a paper for the big expose - you keep reading it because its reliable and works as a status symbol, you stop reading it when it gets you thrown in with people who think a tokoloshe got their daughter pregnant.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton
|
March 16, 2011 10:18 AM
Science journos often religiously bad
I used to have to write headlines to fit a five word limit.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton
|
March 16, 2011 10:22 AM
Posted by: llewelly | March 16, 2011 8:52 AM
Actually, you stop reading at six words a lot of the time.
If you are in a news website and you see a headline that doesn't get your attention you don't click on it.
It is why not having misleading headlines is so important - that's the bit of the story a lot of people glance over.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
March 16, 2011 11:20 AM
Come On, Man. It's Just $20.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 16, 2011 11:46 AM
Fucking Magnets; How do They Work
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
March 16, 2011 12:03 PM
six words or fewer (not less)
Posted by: cm's changeable moniker
|
March 19, 2011 5:08 PM
@llewelly, FYI, you just got ref'ed at mt's blog:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-griping-on-science-journalism.html
---
How people *actually* read online:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html
Sensible advice: make your writing make sense even if the reader only reads the first sentence of each paragraph. (Or use single-sentence paragraphs!)
---
"Six words"? Reminds me of Hemingway. "For Sale. Baby shoes. Never worn." Snopes, schmopes. ;-)