Media meltdown hits science journalism

Bora points to this report about mega shakeups at Scientific American. The editor for nearly a generation, John Rennie, is out. Nature Publishing Group is now calling the shots. In non-science news Ezra Klein, king of all journolism, is moving to The Washington Post. We live in the age of creative destruction when it comes to media. I'm a dabbler in in writing about science, but as the years go by it seems that the media itself is converging upon my own bloggish means of production. I know that Ross Douthat is going to produce print-worthy column prose for The New York Times, but I have to think there'll be a qualitative stylistic difference from the days of William Safire influenced by Douthat's "New Media" exposure.

Speaking of converged New Media, there should be a episode up Sunday or Monday which features myself & Jake Young.

More like this

On Twitter and blogs, we're having another round of complaints about sensationalism and hype in science stories-- Matthew Francis and Gabrielle Rabinowitz are the latest to cross my social media feeds. I've also seen some stories recently (that I'm too lazy to dig up) complaining about the latest…
Gene Expression Categories: Biology, Philosophy of Science Razib has a degree in the life sciences and works in information technology, but he also nurses a strong interest in evolutionary genetics and paleoanthropology. Gene Expression deals primarily with the intersection between new developments…
Will Wilkinson and Jon Haidt just did a I've blogged Haidt's ideas before (Chris is skeptical). During this interview Haidt lays out the difference between college age liberals and other societies with a scenario where a beloved dog dies and the family decides…
Since the bloggingheads "diavlog" with David Dobbs and me was the first science-oriented installment to come out (more or less) since the repudiation of by Carl Zimmer and Sean Carrol, and now Phil Plait and PZ Myers, I think I should say something about why I did it and what I…

I've never rated Scientific American. I don't know why; it's just never appealed. Whereas I read New Scientist every week from, I suppose, age 14 to 24 or so. Now I read it only in the waiting room at the dentist's or the GP's. In all those years its policies are unchanged:-
(i) Everyone else should bow down before the wisdom of the god-like scientists,
(ii) And fund them without limit.

By bioIgnoramus (not verified) on 24 Apr 2009 #permalink

I've always liked Scientific American, but I think its glory days are well behind it. I have a particular beef with its recent string of ugly dark front covers, a bad case of instantly dated graphic design.

And of course like a lot of traditional media outlets Scientific American missed out on the whole new media thing; I guess they were trying to become Discover when they should have been doing ScienceBlogs.