Now on ScienceBlogs: Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: Ricky Gervais on The Book of Genesis

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Science After Sunclipse

A blag for math, physics and the New Enlightenment

Search

Profile

Blake Stacey is a physics boffin and science-fiction writer who wandered the Earth and eventually settled in the nation-state of Denial.

Recent Posts

Reader Favourites

front-cover-sidebar.jpg Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Spiffy Icons

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Blagnet

« A Personal View of Eigenmodes | Main | The Open Laboratory 2008 Now Available »

Boston Globe Dissolves Health/Science Section

Category: Popularization
Posted on: March 4, 2009 5:15 PM, by Blake Stacey

Well, this is a cheerful development. According to Cristine Russell at the Columbia Journalism Review, the Boston Globe has dissolved its weekly Health/Science section, and is now running content in those fields in the business section and its lifestyle tabloid.

"I don't see it as a serious retreat," said [health and science editor Gideon] Gil. "The content is all running in the paper, but going in different places. ... It's entirely occasioned by the need to cut costs. We have found a way to continue to provide essentially the same level of coverage while saving money. To me that shows a continuing commitment to covering health and science in a major way out of recognition that those are crucial topics for our community, areas that make Boston distinctive."

But, Gil acknowledged, some hard sciences such as physics or astronomy — which don't neatly fit into personal health or business innovation — could suffer with the disappearance of Monday's dedicated Health/Science section. "It was nice to have our own sandbox to play in, the freedom to stretch," he said. "Science is quirky sometimes, so a bit of serendipity is lost when we have to fit into different niches in the paper."

Science is more than just "quirky": it's ill-suited for the news cycle in a deep way. New discoveries are getting trumpeted all the time, but it takes a lengthy process of ongoing research to confirm new findings, to flesh them out and set them in context. The bulk of the scientific knowledge base — the stuff we're really confident in — hardly gets coverage at all, because it's not new.

We have here the old "All the news that fits, we print" problem.

"It will definitely put a crimp in the amount of science and health coverage in the paper," said former Globe science editor Nils Bruzelius. "It will continue to be high-quality, but this can't help but dim the overall breadth and scope of coverage when you're fighting for space every day and defining what you do in a more narrowly focused way."

Still, fortunately, it looks like some people know exactly the right thing to do:

[Bruzelius] flew to Boston last week to join about twenty of his former Globe health and science colleagues in an Irish wake for the dearly departed Health/Science section at Donovan's, a local pub in the Savin Hill section of Boston.

I wonder if we could persuade the Digital Cuttlefish, poet laureate of the Scientific Blogohedron, to write a drinking song for the occasion.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/101228

Comments

1

I'll get to work on it-- This news saddens me a bit, unless it means that they will need to replace the late Felicia Lamport's "Muse of the week in review", and want someone to contribute a science/health review in verse... of course, Lamport also versified politics, religion, and social issues. It was (after the comics, of course) my first stop in the Boston Sunday Globe!

Dammit, I want that job!

I can't believe it has been nearly 10 years since she died...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DA1339F936A15751C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=

Posted by: Cuttlefish | March 4, 2009 6:15 PM

2

The news saddens me too. I don't read the Globe as much as I should, but I'm a big fan of the New York Times science section, and I'd be very disappointed to see it suffer the same fate.

Science is more than just "quirky": it's ill-suited for the news cycle in a deep way. New discoveries are getting trumpeted all the time, but it takes a lengthy process of ongoing research to confirm new findings, to flesh them out and set them in context. The bulk of the scientific knowledge base — the stuff we're really confident in — hardly gets coverage at all, because it's not new.

Well said. This raises a number of important questions about how science journalism should be done, and by whom. Which scientific discoveries should be disseminated to the general public, and through which media? What are the responsibilities of journalists to check both the accuracy and the relevance of the science they report? And what role do science blogs have to play?

Posted by: Ben | March 5, 2009 12:28 PM

3

Don't worry, the rest of the paper will probably follow the science section into oblivion soon enough.

Posted by: Nemo | March 7, 2009 10:28 AM

4

What will it mean when newspapers are gone? Truthfully I don't read them anymore. I do not have spousal permission to unsubscribe, but these days I get all my news from the net. Especially from expert bloggers, as opposed to journalism graduates writing about experts.

It worries me more that the newspaper felt it would be a good move, economically, to eliminate the science section. Articles wedged into other sections won't have nearly the weight of a whole regular section that says; "Science is as important as fashion or travel".

Posted by: george.w | April 4, 2009 1:33 PM

5

"Science is more than just "quirky": it's ill-suited for the news cycle in a deep way."

How right you are. I'd also like to add, science isn't only health and medicine.

When Gil says the paper is definitely not retreating from and continually committed to science reporting because health and environment coverage will diffuse and "hard" science coverage will wither and die makes me think, you know, this is exactly how Mooneybaum would word it.

Posted by: gillt | July 16, 2009 9:08 AM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM