This past weekend I attended the UBC Future in Science Journalism conference. It was a very well-organized (thanks Eric), cozy potpourri of scientists, journalists, editors, and authors (and I burned zero carbon to attend). I wanted to share a few things from BBC environmental correspondent Richard Black that might interest sciblings and their readers most. First off: the least trusted of all media sources is blogs. Have a look at this graph as well as the poll behind it:
Blogs are, unsurprisingly, the least trusted media outlet. That said, ScienceBlogs was repeatedly singled out at the conference as a trustworthy medium.
The great news about online science journalism (conventional news sources as well as blogging) is that readers can check a primary or secondary source for the article with just one click (this is truly marvelous!). The multiplicity of layers allows readers to build more trust in science news than they did via other sources (TV and radio). There is the added bonus of feedback mechanisms--people feel satisfaction at the options to email or comment in response to stories (a sort of watered down review process).
But one of the disturbing sides of science online is that media outlets can rigorously track what people read most and, in almost every case, the top science stories are very light on the side of science. In the BBC's case, any story about squid does quite well but one editor admitted that top stories tend to center around "sex and freaks." Anne Casselman was also on the panel and, after showing us some of the analytics of some of the most read stories at Inkling, said, "At the end of the day, there's absolutely no science here."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
To whom it may concern:I find it very interesting people dont believe blogs as much as local tv or print media.Because blogs and television are along the same lines.
Ron C.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
I find this news reassuring. It suggests that the general public actually has a clue. With (of course) the exception of Science blogs and the rest of us highly responsible keepers of the flames of truth, the blgosphere is a fetid swamp. We all know of some great sites out there with really thoughtful, accurate, vetted information. But for every one of those there are probably ten that are cranking out transparently preposterous crap.
It is a b it curious that "news websites" have half the trust level of actual print newspapers,
[What I meant to say, before the website freaked out and cut me off for "sending too many comments in a short time" (huh?) was . . .]
I find this news reassuring. It suggests that the general public actually has a clue. With (of course) the exception of Science blogs and the rest of us highly responsible keepers of the flames of truth, the blogosphere is a fetid swamp. We all know of some great sites out there with really thoughtful, accurate, vetted information. But for every one of those there are probably ten that are cranking out transparently preposterous crap. Climate skeptic sites come to mind. Clearly people get this.
It is a bit curious, however, that "news websites" have half the trust level of actual print newspapers, given that it is mostly the same organizations that run them, and often even the same content. Go figure.
Sex and freaks make the world go round. Just turn on amost any daytime TV talk show. Or for that matter, the nightly news. Or--the most popular blogs in the world!
Excellent points and I agree it shows people on the one hand still have some sense of reality but, on the other hand, don't particularly like reading about it! The link to PerezHilton and the photo of David Beckham was particularly appreciated...
This article may interest you:
Fishing for compliments
Nov 12th 2007
From Economist.com
Why catching fewer fish means catching more fish
As usual, I think The Economist is putting an overly positive spin on this environmental issue. The fact that some fishers have started calling for marine protected areas after their former fishing grounds became devastated hardly suggests that restraint will be shown in places that have not yet suffered that fate.
Milan, Spot on. (Hey, that rhymes). I'm not at all surprised to see that SPIN (another hot topic at the journalism conference) from The Economist. Even less surprised to see the ad from BP in the sidebar saying that one of the world's largest oil companies is searching for solutions to climate change. Huh? The Economist is famous for touting industry (fishing, oil, or otherwise) as the most efficient avenue for healing problems they themselves made.
Another shifting baseline for you: efforts to relieve pressure on rhino populations by encouraging people to use antelope horn instead have wiped out 97% of the target antelope species.
The authors found that the frequencies of allergic and IgE-associated allergic disease and sensitization were similar in the children who had received probiotic and those whoâd gotten placebo. Although there appeared to be a preventive effect at age 2, there was none noted at age 5. Interestingly, in babies born by cesarean section, the researchers found less IgE-associated allergic disease in those who had received the probiotic.
The authors found that the frequencies of allergic and IgE-associated allergic disease and sensitization were similar in the children who had received probiotic and those whoâd gotten placebo. Although there appeared to be a preventive effect at age 2, there was none noted at age 5. Interestingly, in babies born by cesarean section, the researchers found less IgE-associated allergic disease in those who had received the probiotic.
The authors found that the frequencies of allergic and IgE-associated allergic disease and sensitization were similar in the children who had received probiotic and those whoâd gotten placebo. Although there appeared to be a preventive effect at age 2, there was none noted at age 5. Interestingly, in babies born by cesarean section, the researchers found less IgE-associated allergic disease in those who had received the probiotic.
This past weekend I attended the UBC Future in Science Journalism conference. It was a very well-organized (thanks Eric), cozy potpourri of scientists, journalists, editors, and authors (and I burned zero carbon to attend). I wanted to share a few things from BBC environmental correspondent Richard Black that might interest sciblings and their readers most. First off: the least trusted of all media sources is blogs. Have a look at this graph as well as the poll behind it: