Science Journalism
tsmith | July 3, 2007A few other topics readers here may appreciate:
First and foremost, this week's Grand Rounds can be found over at Over my med body!. Next week, however, it will be hosted right here at Aetiology for the second time, so send your posts along to me (aetiology AT gmail DOT com), preferably by Sunday evening.
Pediatric Grand Rounds also had a new edition over the weekend, which can be found over at Shinga's Breath Spa for Kids.
National Geographic's July cover story is on malaria--a really good read. (via Panda's Thumb).
Matt Nisbet was late to the scientists and journalists conversation. He…
tsmith | June 22, 2007Seems like this discussion is starting to wind down, but I did see a few additional posts that I haven't linked yet: Janet, Josh, Bora, doc-in-training, and Melinda Barton. As with the previous posts, lots of good ideas (from both the scientist and the journalist points of view).
[Edited to add yet another one I found today from Nobel Intent.
tsmith | June 20, 2007Really, one of these times I'll get onto a new topic, but every time I turn around, new posts pop up in the scientists and journalists conversation. The most recent updates:
Chris Mooney, part II. I want to emphasize a resource he linked: the report from a 2005 workshop on "Science Communications and the News Media." I haven't had time to do more than skim it yet, but it's interesting reading.
Chris also notes:
The real upshot of all this is that scientists--at least those planning on doing interviews--need to study the media, at least in enough detail to get a sense of some of these…
tsmith | June 20, 2007Check out new posts on the scientist/journalist (mis?)communication topic at Evolving Thoughts, The Loom, and The Post-Normal Times.
tsmith | June 19, 2007In addition to comments by Mike, Jennifer, and Astroprof, Chris Mooney added his thoughts to the scientist-journalist communication discussion in a post here--so perhaps a few more journalists will pop out of the woodwork there and elaborate.
I see a common theme here. Scientists have often had issues with misquotation, and it tends to sour them on science journalists. Journalists know that misquotation is bound to happen now and then, and it bothers them less. Chris notes:
I also second Jennifer Ouellette that sometimes scientists get too miffed about being misquoted. Don't get me wrong…
tsmith | June 19, 2007I've had a busy week (and an especially busy weekend--more on that in a later post), so today's activity will again be sparse, but I have a lot on tap (now just to get it all typed up!) I do, however, want to highlight a few other posts you should read if you were interested in my post on the collision of scientists and journalists:
First, Mike's post on the topic. As he notes, part of his job is to "deal with journalists," so he has lots of good advice for those on both sides of the aisle.
Astroprof left a comment here on the article, and also elaborated on the topic in a post of his…
tsmith | June 15, 2007As y'all know, a frequent topic of conversation here is communicating science to the public. While many of us do it directly via sites such as this one, the bulk of science writing that the public will read is done by the pros--people writing for the magazines and newspapers, among other outlets. Often, their stories include interviews with research scientists. However, we're not always so easy to get in touch with, and we blow reporters off altogether--apparently, pretty frequently.
On a listserv I subscribe to, there recently was a discussion amongst writers regarding how to get…
tsmith | June 11, 2007It's been awhile since I picked on the real science journalists (as opposed to we Daily Show-esque "fake news" sites). I don't mean to get down on them too much; I know that there are many out there who do an incredible job, but then there are also ones who write up articles like this one on how "...women in northern Europe evolved with light hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to stand out from the crowd and lure men away from the far more common brunette."
Ugh.
So especially for you infectious disease types, can you spot a glaring omission in this article: "Meningitis A…
purepedantry | January 3, 2007Grrrr. Tell me if this article bugs you as much as it does me:
Social Dementia' Decimates Special NeuronsBy Michael Balter
Being human has its pluses and minuses. Our cognitive powers are superior to that of other animals, and we can act consciously to alter our destinies. On the other hand, our highly evolved brains are prone to serious malfunctions such as mental illness and dementia. Now a team of neuroscientists has found that some of these blessings and curses might be linked to the same specialized neural circuits.
In 1999, researchers discovered that the brains of humans and great…
tsmith | March 2, 2006 How women evolved blond hair to win cavemen's hearts
Academic researchers have discovered that women in northern Europe evolved with light hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to stand out from the crowd and lure men away from the far more common brunette.
First, I'll note that I've not read the paper this article is based on, nor is it my intent to critique it. It may be great, it may be terrible. They may have a point, they may not. [Edited to add: you can find a post here on the actual paper for those interested]. In this case, I'm concerned with the write-up, 'cause it's one…