If you're a scientist mysteried by the media, AAAS has set up a nice site to help. Included are a series of interviews with members of that dubious profession, including Science Friday's Ira Flatow talking about radio, and the New York Times's environment writer Andrew Revkin on newspaper reporting. I talk> about life as a multitasking freelancer, and how blog posts and books are and are not the same.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Continuing with the tradition from last two years, I will occasionally post interviews with some of the participants of the ScienceOnline2010 conference that was held in the Research Triangle Park, NC back in January. See all the interviews in this series here. You can check out previous years'…
You know I have been following the "death of newspapers" debate, as well as "bloggers vs. journalists" debate, and "do we need science reporters" debate for a long time now. What I have found - and it is frustrating to watch - is that different people use different definitions for the same set of…
Here are a few pertinent quotes, but read the entire articles as well as long comment threads.
Ed Cone:
Skube published an opinion piece about blogs that, with the help of his editors at the LA Times, failed to uphold the journalistic standards he preaches.
It's not the first time that Skube has…
I've been a guest or interviewer on Minnesota Atheist Talk radio a number of times. I never talk about atheism because I'm nothing close to an expert on that or related issues (though I do have a chapter in a book about it, here!). And, of course, I'm very involved, professionally, in certain…
I cringed when I saw the question about "dumbing down" the science. Your answer is very good. We need to remove "dumbing down" and replace it with "elegant explanations."
Thanks for the links. I was recently offered work as a science writer for the local college paper and really looking for tips and advice on refining my scientific background into something usable for communication with the public.
I cringed when I saw the question about "dumbing down" the science. Your answer is very good. We need to remove "dumbing down" and replace it with "elegant explanations."
Posted by: Ron | March 13, 2008 10:51 AM
Sounds like the epitome of elegant solutions! LOL!
Dave Briggs :~)
A very nice site that I will be including next time I give a media training class...I'm glad they're backing up all the advice we give scientists about communications.
Elegant explanations sounds wonderful. But do not forget that it is the truth, no matter how complex, that is being explained.
Not that that is likely to occur on this site...
I don't see how doing a good job explaining something precludes being accurate in explaining nature (assuming that's what you mean by explaining the truth). It's actually damn hard to take a topic you discuss with your labmates all the time and turn around and explain it to an audience with a different background. It is also damn hard to understand what the science is, why it is exciting, and translate that to the audience. Carl excels at that feat. If you read the answers to the "dumbing down" question by Carl, Andrew, and Ira, each does a reasonable job in answering the question. However, Carl and Andrew make a point of indicating that they aren't dumbing down anything. Ira's response may be the difference between a radio host (who has the scientists participating in the conversation) versus print reporters.
Found this recently at my alma mater. I thought it was very good.
http://qnc.queensu.ca/dhtml/mediatips.php