Catching up on old messages - I find it tedious ploughing through all those
wonderful job ads and invitations to events - this one caught my eye.

As the nutcase who first dreamed up the BA's Media Fellowships scheme, and
who screwed sponsorship out of various folks, I endorse Nigel Eady's general
view, but past experience, and talking to some of the people who have hosted
the fellows, I am not sure that the "without exception" is quite true. There
is always one wiseass who turns up for a placement knowing all of the
answers before asking the questions.

I'd water down "without exception". 

Unfortunately, scientists who leave their placements with the views he
quoted are also disappointingly misguided. Then again, I find most science
reporting in the newspapers to be tediously lazy, perhaps even lazily
tedious, these days.

As to the arts/science thing, ho hum.

__________________________________________________________________
Michael Kenward            / Phone/Fax:         +44 (0)1444 400568
                          / 
Science Writer & Stuff   /     Genetically modified words for sale




-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nigel Eady
Sent: 04 April 2006 14:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge

-----------Is it because news editors know and care less about our
scientific heritage? Or is it that our science journalists don't
care?-----------


Have to say I think it's neither of these things as Chris Stokes said.

When, each year, the BA gives a small number of full-time research
scientists the chance to become science journalists for 3-8 weeks, many
of them start the placement somewhat sceptical of the integrity and
knowledge of science journalists.  Saying for example, 

    "Like many academics, despite my best intentions and training,
several previous forays into the media had been less than successful:
misquotes and missed opportunities felt like the norm, not the
exception."

However, I think I can say that, without exception, the scientists come
out of the Media Fellowships scheme http://www.the-ba.net/mediafellows
(2006 applications close on 18 April) with quite a different view.  For
example,

    "The science journalists I met have an incredible breadth of
knowledge and a talent at communicating interesting, accurate stories.
There's no underlying conspiracy to find 'shock' stories, or portray
science in a negative way."
    "I admired their tireless interest in the science they covered and
their genuine commitment to getting the story right."
    "The science item will compete for space with the earthquakes,
politics and scandal that make up the everyday news."
    "One of the most essential things about writing a piece for public
consumption is the all-important opening line, or hook.  If the news
editor does not think this gripping or leading enough, the piece is
unlikely to be printed, however newsworthy the subject."

I think the last couple of quotes answer the questions Bob posed.

Nigel


Nigel Eady
Science in Society Assistant
The BA 

-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Abbott, Wynn
Sent: 03 April 2006 00:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge

Hi Bob,
 
I was going to write and say how wrong I think you are about arts vs
science press coverage; I quickly noted your comments on Friday - the
day the Guardian did a piece on the Shakespeare - followed closely on
Saturday with coverage of your (Hooke) story in as much detail in pretty
much the same spot in the newspaper.  Anyway, I see now that you let the
Guardian off the hook (without an e).  
 
The newspapers I read seem to be jam-packed with science so I'd be
surprised if there's an overall bias towards arts/humanities?  But maybe
there's a conflict when it comes to "science & culture" (incl. History
of Science) - I've curated a few science-art exhibitions and found it
can be very difficult persuading science and/or arts editors to cover
these projects because both groups feel that it falls outside their
remit i.e. science journalists have been very supportive of the work but
feel a pressure (from above?) to stick to what's expected of them (hard
natural science)...and there's so much of that to report that they have
trouble considering interdisciplinary work.
 
The Royal Soc shouldn't take it personally - espec in relation to Hooke
- isn't he the guy we don't even have a portrait of?  Don't suppose that
helps his public image - maybe if someone had found a dusty old portrait
in the same place his folio turned up he would have had more press
(espec if he was good-looking!).
 
I suspect if it had been Shakespeare vs Darwin, Darwin would have fared
much better?
 
As to whether Shakespeare contributed as much to humankind as Hooke -
aren't they probably as important as each other?  Didn't people like
Shakespeare contribute to an intellectual climate in which great minds
became capable of doing great things?  Maybe the 250 or so words
Shakespeare introduced into the English language made it easier for
Hooke to describe what he saw down his microscope?
 
These arguments are probably endless and circular so I'll sign off
now...
 
....look forward to seeing the Hooke stuff on show.
 
 
 
Wynn
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

________________________________

From: psci-com: on public engagement with science on behalf of Ward, Bob
Sent: Fri 31/03/2006 09:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge



I know that there hasn't been any quantitative analysis of whether there
is a bias towards the arts and humanities in the UK media, but I have to
say that the extensive coverage devoted today to the forthcoming auction
of the Shakespeare first edition (of which there are about 250 in the
world) which already vastly exceeds the coverage of the auction of the
Hooke folio (of which there is just one), looks like pretty solid
evidence.

No doubt there will be further yards of coverage and hours of airtime
devoted to it if it is saved for the nation just minutes before it is
due to go under the hammer, in stark contrast to the way that the UK
media completely ignored (with the honourable exception of the Guardian)
the deal that the Royal Society struck on Tuesday afternoon to save the
Hooke folio for the nation.

I know the documents aren't directly comparable, and that there might be
much debate about who made the more important contribution to humankind,
but it does seem to me that the contrast in the coverage of Shakespeare
and Hooke this week shows that the UK media is much less interested in
Britain's scientific heritage than it its history in the arts and
humanities. Is it because news editors know and care less about our
scientific heritage? Or is it that our science journalists don't care?

In a few weeks time, the Hooke folio will be arriving back at the Royal
Society for the first time in about 300 years. I hope that the UK media
will want to cover that. Or should I be contacting arts correspondents
instead?

Bob Ward
Senior Manager
Policy Communication
Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG 

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346 

**********************************************************************

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

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************