How News handles Science

They're not scientists.
I don't like it. But I can understand it.

You always have to remember that most journalists work under quick deadlines, and that inevitably means that they sometimes have to concoct a "story" to meet the editor's demands, when they don't really have a decent one. In addition, given the deadline situation, the journalist doesn't have time to delve much into real solid scientific background.

Science stuff always works because the reading public isn't any more educated in scientific topics than are the journalists (probably even less so, in fact). Journalists also work under strict and highly limited space constraints.

And, truthfully, most scientists aren't very good at communicating their information in a way that is even translucent, let alone transparent, to anyone who is not a co-specialist in the field. There are very few Carl Sagans and Stephen Jay Goulds and Oliver Sackses lurking around. Communication suffers as a result.

caw

More to the point, they didn't actually analyse Charles Darwin's DNA at all. They looked at the DNA of a man assumed to be his gg-grandson. But that doesn't have to be true.

If one wanted to read science, they would go read a science magazine (online or print). The only science I would get myself briefed upon from major news sources is where the storms were and where the earthquakes happened.

I've had a problem talking to scientists. When I ask them to explain something that I don't understand, some get snotty and tell me that if I don't understand (that is, if I'm not a scientist) I shouldn't be writing the story. As a journalist, I can write about pretty much anything if my source will talk to me.

I've also had the problem of deadlines. For me, they meant I needed to have the story finished at the end of the day, or maybe at the end of the next day. I've called an left messages with sources and have them call me back a week later. Too late, buddy.

I agree, though. Most science articles in news magazines and in newspapers are written to show what the new discovery (or whatever) can do for the reader. Pure science? No one cares, except other scientists.

blacbird said:

And, truthfully, most scientists aren't very good at communicating their information in a way that is even translucent, let alone transparent, to anyone who is not a co-specialist in the field. There are very few Carl Sagans and Stephen Jay Goulds and Oliver Sackses lurking around. Communication suffers as a result.

Click to expand...

Worse, a lot of bleeding edge research papers simply cannot be understood by the layman no matter who writes the text. People get educations for a reason.

Maxinquaye said:

This is a pretty good example of how badly journalists and newspapers often handle science.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...of-the-species-of-charles-darwin-1889951.html



That statement is, of course, true. The only problem is... pretty much everyone in western Europe comes from Haplogroub R1b. From Queen Victoria to the wash maidens of renaissance Italy.

Yet, it makes it into paper as news...

Click to expand...

This isn't an example of bad science journalism.

If you want bad examples, look through the archive at www.badscience.net

This one had the science correct. In fact, it used a fairly innocuous excuse to educate the reader about a bit of science. So why is that a bad thing?

Sure, it might not have been an event in science, but it was still good science.

Mac

blacbird said:

There are very few Carl Sagans and Stephen Jay Goulds and Oliver Sackses lurking around. Communication suffers as a result.

caw

Click to expand...

I can't believe it took me three days to think of this!



XKCD

StephanieFox said:

I've had a problem talking to scientists. When I ask them to explain something that I don't understand, some get snotty and tell me that if I don't understand (that is, if I'm not a scientist) I shouldn't be writing the story. As a journalist, I can write about pretty much anything if my source will talk to me.

Click to expand...

I come at this, perhaps uniquely here, from both perspectives. I've been a reporter, and I am now a scientist. I've had more than one reporter ask me the dumbest questions imaginable. And yes, Virginia, there are dumb questions, believe me. You answer three of these with patience, and then get asked a fourth that signals clearly that the reporter didn't listen to a word of the first three answers, you tend to get short and want to say anything that will get the moron out of your office so you can get back to doing work.

After which the moron produces a story so ridiculous there isn't any sane rational response to be made.

caw

I've had more than one reporter ask me the dumbest questions imaginable. And yes, Virginia, there are dumb questions, believe me.

Click to expand...

Yep (clinician, not scientist here) I'm happy to explain things to people--it's one of the essential tasks of my job. But you also expect that good reporters have done some basic research on the topic prior to the interview, and I've had some encounters where that clearly wasn't the case--a particularly hair raising recent interview about spina bifida comes to mind. And my field is really not abstruse.

Since I represent the university and its medical school, I will be the soul of bland decorum no matter how dumb things get, but I obviously don't want to be misquoted or the source of misinformation.