> A journalist does not give a hoot about the credibility of the scientist
> or the status of the science. If Dr X of the University of Y says Z,
> then they will get publicity if the story has appeal. And what appeals
> to punters, and news editors, famous for not having a scientifically
> informed brain cell between their ears, is rarely the stuff of
> breakthroughs. They prefer magnetic pain relief and similar ju ju even
> if there is bugger all evidence to support it.
I know. Then you must accept that you're in the business of spreading
public confusion rather than public understanding, and its the job of
people who are concerned about public understanding to draw attention to
and pour scorn upon your methods. There ARE varying standards of
journalism - it doesn't all need to be so low. Do you agree that Britain
is particularly poor?
Apart from punters with no scientifically informed brain cell, I hope your
approach leaves unsatisfied a large and potentially marketable body
of interested and intelligent lay people who simply want to keep up with
science without having to sift through dross. My parents are two...but you
might be right, there might not be any more.
> Think about it from the viewpoint of Dr X. The person who first thinks
> there may be something in the idea has no more than a hunch to go on.
> They fancy doing some research, but no one takes them seriously. So they
> ruminate in public, provoke a bit of a stir and then maybe the money
> will flow. Something may then come of the research. If not it will sink
> without trace. The journalist will have moved ion to something else.
I agree.
> Never ever think of science writers as being a part of the research
> community. They are not there to drum up support for science. I have
> heard this suggested more than once.
I don't.
> Journalists are there to observe and to entertain and inform their
> audiences. Naturally we like it when science is a fashionable subject.
> It means that we get more space. That's how I inveigle myself into the
> pages of the Financial Times.
>
> Think of hacks as the fly on the wall, or on something less mentionable.
> We just watch. If some scientists get up to things that other
> scientists, it isn't our job to ignore them.
>
> MK
It would be a pretty poor political journalist who appeared on the evening
news and repeated verbatum what one particular politician had said earlier
that day as if it were fact. The audience expects the journalist to
understand how politics works, and to do a bit more research. I know they
don't, but then they're rubbish at their job and should be sacked.
Am I really having to argue the case for more well researched journalism
on an email list dedicated to the public understanding of science?
-------------------------------------------
Clyde Francks B.A. D.Phil.
The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics
University of Oxford
Roosevelt Drive
Oxford OX3 7BN
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1865 287509
Email: [log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
**********************************************************************
|