sci-lence

June 27th, 5am in St. John’s Newfoundland
(11:30pm Vancouver Time)

I’m leaving St. John’s after a science writers conference where the journalist fervour regarding issues of science communication was decidedly lacking...
regardless, I met some good people and St. John’s is a town I’d like to linger in if given the opportunity.
The dawn sky is open and clear. A rose glow frames the rising blue.
I do believe that I will be coming back to this place...sometime...

i wrote that in my little moleskin that i carry around everywhere.
i was a little disappointed in the conference. i wanted more discussion about the challenges of doing science journalism and some of the larger social issues of science, but most of the conference was a showcase for science centres and researchers in Newfoundland and the Maritimes...there is nothing wrong with that, i just wanted more discussion and analysis over PR. I can easily get PR and information from scientists, but getting people concerned about science communication together to debate issues in science communication is not something so easily accomplished...that’s what i thought the conference would be about.

wow...i do believe that i’m still idealistic.

the conference also got me thinking about something else; what is a science writer? the predominate feel of the conference was very pro-science, the focus was about getting the story and communicating science. there was not even a slight indication that journalists should challenge scientists and critique their work or analyze the social impact of it. Actually, i cannot say that for a certainty, i did miss a few sessions, so it could have popped up when i wasn’t around. but it seemed to me like everyone was more concerned about being good mouthpieces for scientists rather than tempered sceptics that should seek the truth and verify information from multiple sources, like every good journalist should.

i am very pro-science, but my scientific training taught me to be sceptical of every publication and claim made by every other scientist. Show me reproducible data and i will believe your claims...maybe...depending on how the data looks and the methods employed to generate the data.

i think i have to change my business cards to say 'science journalist' rather than 'science writer'. at least until i get out of school and get a job. due to economic pressures, i might not always be able to claim such a noble title...

Replies
D
7 July 06

It's an interesting question, J. Science is probably one of the hardest fields for contemporary journalism to address, simply because the structure of 'news' is so inappropriate for it. Add in an audience that, as a general rule, wants 'hard' answers from both journalists and scientists, and it's a nasty mix.

The end result, of course, is that science journalism is somehing of a joke, particularly when it comes to health issues. This week, every media source will jump on a study showing how X contributes to Y health problem. Two months from now, they'll jump on another study will show that X can protect you from Z health problem. And neither story, as supplied by the media in their 4 paragraph stories or 8 second sound-bites, will provide the context in which those studies are performed. You see the same thing with dozens of other topics, particularly when they run contrary to business interests, where the media will always strive to present a 'balanced' view, regardless of how absurd that balance might be without proper context.

I don't think it will get better, to be honest. More thorough reporting would be good, as would an increased recognition from the public that things are never white/black. But that's not going to happen, even with the internet. Indeed, I think the internet feeds the problem, since it becomes harder to identify the source of a claim and most bloggers (where an unfortunate % of people go for their news these days) do not engage in in-depth analysis of issues or context, but rather note something as 'outrageous' or 'exciting' and then move on to the next shiny topic that has caught their eye.

D
7 July 06

Oh, by the way, don't know if you read him already, but:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/

h
13 July 06

Jeffrey - good points here and all valid. From my limited experience, part of the challenges have to do with having to explain basic scientific concepts fundamental to an appreciation of the story. I think that has an effect not only on the length of the piece, which raises other issues about getting the story placed, but also on tone. When you spend time covering the basics, something that does not take place with other subjects like, say, politics, it's hard not to feel that the discussion of issues and being critical is somehow taking the back seat.

Agree with your conclusions about St. John's. Spent some more time there after the conference and definitely going back to try and tune into more of that unique frequency.

Thank you, but commenting has expired.