Clearly it is not the science but rather the journalism that constitutes the limiting factor in the quality of science journalism.
A few weeks ago, the Guardian’s
website ran a
piece titled “This
Is a News Website Article about a Scientific Paper,” which begins:
In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes,
making appropriate use of “scare quotes” to ensure that it’s clear
that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.
In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more
than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research
If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem,
this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of
sufferers or victims.
This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like “the
scientists say” to shift responsibility for establishing the likely
truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody
else but me, the journalist…
The piece continues in the same vein. Of course, it was intended as
satire directed at the formulaic and largely counterproductive manner
in which science journalism is too often conducted. Unfortunately, it
was satire of the dead-on sort that will resonate with anyone familiar
with the ubiquitous flaws in the process by which scientific findings
are presented to the public in the modern age.
This is not to say that the modern age should take the blame for this
problem, as it does for so many others. “Ask not why the old days
were better, for that is a foolish question,” as the Bible tells us
in an uncharacteristic fit of wisdom. Popular Science
released the entirety of its archives earlier this year, and a quick
perusal thereof will confirm that the science journalism of the late
nineteenth century was often worse than that of our own age. One article
from 1887 concerns itself with alleged differences in brain weight by
nationality, which the author and researchers conclude is a result of
varying climates; an even more dubious article appeared a few years
later proclaiming that the myth of the Wandering Jew is based in a “neuropathic
compulsion” by which Jews are collectively “possessed by an irresistible
inclination to travel.”
In neither of these cases is journalism itself really at fault; as best
as can be determined, the authors provided an accurate and well-composed
representation of the wacky subject matter in question, which itself
would not have raised too many eyebrows among the average scientists
of the time. Comparing that age with our own, it would be difficult
not to argue that science has progressed tremendously both in terms
of the quantity of the data accumulated and the protocols by which that
accumulation is now carried out. If we make a similar comparison between
the journalism of the late nineteenth century and that of the early
twenty-first, though, we find that the progress is decidedly mixed.
Clearly it is not the science but rather the journalism that constitutes
the limiting factor in the quality of science journalism. If one examines
a copy of Time from the ’60s and compares it to the most recent
edition, the first thing one will notice is a steep decline in thickness;
upon flipping through the pages of both issues, one will notice that
the earlier specimen is not only thicker but includes far more words
per page than its descendant. Upon actually reading the articles on
science, one will have trouble making any comparison at all because
the latest Time does not have any articles on science (although
it does have an article on Burger King’s new Pizza Burger, which begins
with the sentence, “I just ate a pizza made out of hamburgers.”).
Of course, Time and its counterparts in the magazine, newspaper,
and television industries do indeed run science pieces on a fairly regular
basis, and many of these are indeed composed and presented in such a
way as to have a net positive effect on the understanding of the general
public. But to an extent that makes the above parody sadly relevant,
the process by which scientific developments are translated from the
lab to the page tends to entail the amplification of the insignificant,
the de-emphasizing of the inconvenient, and a general sacrifice of accuracy
in service to the unfortunate pressures inherent to modern media.
There are a number of limiting factors that define the upper limits
in terms of the quality of those science articles that find publication,
and these may be divided into those that stem from the outlet and those
that stem from the writer. The outlet tends to make demands that are
compatible with good scientific journalism (a maximum word limit, quotes
from relevant sources) as well as those that are often not compatible
(subject matter that is perceived to be of interest to a large portion
of the readership, a storyline that may offer more than is warranted).
Meanwhile, the writer brings to the table certain limiting factors of
his own, including his ability to write cogent and readable articles
as well as to track down and accurately convey scientific developments,
and his necessity to do these things with sufficient ease and rapidity
so that the sum he makes as a result is worth the time and effort invested.
If we seek to improve the state of science journalism, we have the best
chance of doing so by influencing the writer rather than those who run
the outlet; the latter will not be convinced to abandon the pursuit
of readership and profits in service to mere science, whereas even the
most mercenary of freelancers will happily accept any assistance that
makes his work easier and more profitable while also making it better.
More to the point, there are a great number of writers who are quite
mindful of making a positive impact on public understanding who would
consider any help in doing so to be similarly attractive.
As such, I’d like to announce the launch of the Science Journalism
Improvement Program, the first of several efforts being undertaken by
the distributed think tank Project PM since its founding earlier this
year. The procedure by which we’ll be operating, which I’ll describe
below, is the result of input by a group of participants, including
Todd Essig, PhD, a training and supervising analyst at the William Alanson
White Institute and a columnist for Psychology
Today, who founded an online network for mental health professionals
in 1992, which itself gave rise to the first post-graduate psychoanalytic
online continuing education course as well as an annual conference on
the subject; and Mano Singham, director of the University Center for
Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve and adjunct
professor of physics, who is the author of several books on evolution
and philosophy of science, in addition to being a fellow of the American
Physical Society and an active blogger.
The process by which this program operates centers around the pairing
of freelance writers with scientists and science-based practitioners
(such as healthcare professionals or engineers) who will assist their
partners by identifying potential story ideas, providing assistance
with research, and putting writers in touch with other qualified sources
for background information and quotations. Participating scientists
can expect several benefits: more media attention given to one’s own
area of expertise; publicity for themselves, their institutions, and
their sponsors; and even byline credit if the level of contribution
merits such recognition.
Participating journalists can expect to produce articles and presentations
of better quality and higher accuracy than the current norm without
losing popular appeal. Hopefully, they will also be able to see more
of their work published.
Project PM’s participating media experts, including editors and more
established writers, will assist in getting these articles published.
If, for example, a freelancer requests assistance placing an article,
Project PM will help by identifying the best publications for placement,
providing the freelancer with contact information for the relevant editors,
providing tips on formulating the pitch, and otherwise assisting in
getting the piece sold.
This process begins by enlisting interested scientists and freelancers,
all of whom will be included in our database along with information
on their areas of interest and expertise; such information will be used
to designate journalist-scientist pairs, members of which will together
decide on the particulars of the articles to be produced as well as
the specific nature of their partnerships. Aside from facilitating the
initial introduction and providing any assistance that a pair might
request, Project PM and the administrators of the Science Journalism
Improvement Program will otherwise refrain from supervising the working
relationship of the pair, which will be governed by nothing other than
mutual respect and a shared intention to improve the degree of scientific
knowledge on the part of the general public.
At this early stage, Project PM has already recruited a handful of prominent
freelancers and established scientists to participate in this effort,
and the program is now open to applicants of both sorts. If you’re
a freelance writer or science-based practitioner interested in working
with us, send me a brief e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, and you’ll receive a short questionnaire
regarding your background and expertise. If you’re a layman who might
be interested in working with other skeptics on activities involving
media reform in general, get in touch with us at the same address.