Slashdot Mirror
Can Science Journalism Be Entertaining and Responsible?
GRW writes "This past week, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, entitled "Can science journalism be entertaining and responsible?". This was a discussion regarding the role the media could and should play in the dissemination of scientific issues to the general public. Panelists included newspaper, TV and radio journalists. I thought that this might be a good subject for a Slashdot discussion. What do you think about science journalism? How can it better communicate to the general public about science and the scientific method? Can science journalism do a better job of helping people distinguish science from pseudoscience?"
For my part, i enjoy fairly technial reading, but most people do not, and they are the ones who have so very much to benefit from making science reporting interesting. some of the most approachable science and environmental reporting i've found yet is from The Worldwatch Institute.
CBC does entertaining science programing every weekend and week. The Nature of Things is a very good program hosted by David Suzuki who is always provocative. Bob McDonald of Quirks and Quarks on the radio give up-to-the-week science news that is very informative and interesting.
It just takes the right person, and the right subject. Not all science is for everyone. Space people might not care for the science of bugs for instance.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Can science journalism do a better job of helping people distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine do a good job.
Unfortunately there are magazines based on pseudoscience that make it to the bookshelves; not only the crystal-waving, aura-reading kind, but even a few that seem on the surface to be legitimate scientific publications, until you see the bizarre anti-environmentalism or cold fusion stuff.
I noticed this in several books I read about complexity some years back --- they all featured the same cast of characters, with the same spin on how they labored alone in obscurity to develop their ideas. After a while, I felt like I was reading the work of a Hollywood PR consultant who specializes in branding the "scientific persona". In contrast, economist W. Brian Arthur's own account of his research focused on how he got inspiration for his ideas from working with Russian mathematicians.
I do think it's possible to weave a compelling narrative out of scientific ideas, it's just harder.
My first inductee into the science journalism "Hall of Shame" would have to be The Double Helix by James Watson, which I enjoyed immensely the first time I read it (shortly after high school) and horrified me the second time I read it (shortly after grad school). Not only is The Double Helix an abominable exercise is self-aggrandizement, Watson proudly recounts their underhanded attempts to gain access to another researcher's work without her knowledge or consent, and of course, without giving her credit later, even though it involved an outright lie in a letter to Nature.
Here's a review of a biography Rosalind Franklin, THe Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox in Scientific American.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Most people outside Australia wouldn't have heard Adam and Dr Karl doing their Sleek Geek show. Really entertaining, and accurate stuff. Adam Spencer is a DJ at JJJ, and also holds a PhD in mathematics. Dr Karl is a regular visitor on Thursday mornings since it seems time began. See some of his stuff here. Recently, they got together for a tour called "Sleek Geeks" .. and here's a report on it by New Scientist.
It can be done !
Bitter and proud of it.