Battle Hymn Of The Science Journalist
15 Nov
Over the past decade, I’ve seen, heard, and participated in the call for more scientists to reach out and communicate what we do beyond the ivory towers of academia in order to improve public understanding of science. I receive a great deal of correspondence from the science community asking how to engage broad audiences, what it looks like, and who to speak with. I’d like to briefly address the final question..
There are many excellent science journalists who inhabit the blogosphere and those mainstream news outlets that still feature science sections. These talented individuals want to share your story, your research, and they appreciate and value what you do.
However, there are also a lot of horrible journalists making the rest of us look bad.. Writers who care less about getting it right, and more about trumping up controversy. Journalists whose headlines are notoriously misleading or false. Some make up quotes without speaking to you. Others pair your story with pseudoscience, giving both so-called “sides” equal space. And so on..
The take home message is this: It’s not just the responsibility of scientists to reach out. It’s also on science journalists. And we need more skilled, credible, and honest storytellers doing their part to get the narrative right–particularly on topics like climate science, vaccination, and energy. Having a science background is an asset, not a hurdle for this trajectory.
Yes, I encourage scientists to speak to journalists – but do your homework first. Forge relationships with writers you trust. I also want to encourage science students passionate to make a difference to seriously consider pursuing science journalism. Not as an “alternative career” if your research doesn’t work out, but as a competitive and extremely challenging occupation.
Science is under siege. The pressure is mounting and we’re losing important battles in policy and the public arena. But it’s not too late. We need new soldiers–a resurgence of excellent science journalists.
and a business model. We also need a business model.
I say reach out to journalists – and everyone else.
“honest storytellers doing their part to get the narrative right–particularly on topics like climate science, vaccination, and energy. ”
You could not have done a better job describing why science journalism is “under siege.” It is not your job to tell a “narrative.” It is your job to be an independent investigator of and teller of FACTS.
Get in to your proper role and stop trying to advance “narratives” and you will find your work appreciated by more people — including this scientist.
Mike wrote:
And what do you believe is my proper role? I’m trained as a scientist and I tell our stories. I clicked on your link and it appears you give talks denying that climate change is a problem–demonstrating why we need more credible science journalists to combat pseudoscience.
I also clicked on Mike Smith’s link, watched one of his videos, and it appears that he’s taken the tactic of employing the narratives told by climate deniers. For example, “we can’t predict the weather more than five days out, how can we predict climate trends?” Those aren’t facts, they’re misleading narratives.
The job of a science journalist isn’t to write articles with a list of bullet-pointed facts. Journalists have always told stories. Stories help readers/listeners/viewers understand the facts and what they mean. Facts don’t exist in a vacuum.
I, for one, support Sheril’s call for more credible science journalists! It’s a difficult landscape out there, as evidenced by this very discussion.
Strange that you should say that, Mr. Smith, considering that your website boasts of the very thing that the author suggests. Your book is ‘written in the style of a novel’, is it not?
Here, here, Sheril and Lindsay, you both say it accurately and well.
People like Mike Smith sorely need to have their perspective and intellect expanded in a healthy dose of reality.
Sheril and Lindsay,
Wow, do you know how to prove a person’s point: I AM a scientist — in atmospheric science. I am board certified as a consulting meteorologist and am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. And, yes, I have college credit in climatology, atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics.
So, rather than responding to my posting (which had nothing to do with climate change) with a journalistic curiosity, you attack using a perforative (“denier”).
You have made my point better than I ever could.
Mike
Martin,
There is a big difference between a journalist telling a story (implies original work) and “advancing a narrative” (implies advancing someone else’s thoughts, see: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n3/full/nclimate1135.html ).
While I had the privilege of working with two excellent editors, the work in my book is original. In fact, to my knowledge, there is no other book on the same topic.
I salute journalists who do their own research and tell excellent stories. That is the way to create something valuable that people will want to read and/or purchase. “Advancing narratives” has nothing to do with journalism.
Mike
You are right Sheril, but can I think bigger than journalist. Science could use a “face”, an energetic, inspiring, and marketable character. The next Carl Sagan, Steve Irwin, or Bill Nye. Someone who grabs the attention of large masses of everyday non-science people, whether it be through a story, TV show, or website. What do you think? Do you know anyone who fits this role? A search/competition would make a great reality TV show on the Science Channel.
I’m scouring Chicago looking for this person. So far, the best candidate is Dr. Josh Drew (@labroides) from the Field Museum of Natural History. Keep an eye on him.
I was wondering just whom you were referring to as “(w)riters who care less about getting it right, and more about trumping up controversy.” By using the word “denier” in your comment reply, you have exposed your bias and closed mindedness. You are what you are writing against. Science should be about facts, not a political agenda picking and choosing, even manufacturing “facts” to support it. Fraudulent anthropogenic global warming claims are the perfect example.