Slashdot Mirror
Is Good Scientific Journalism Possible?
scida sends in a link to his blog post exploring the question of whether, roughly speaking, science journalism is an impossible task. From the post: "I have spent the better half of the past six months trying to understand one thing: how can you effectively present primary scientific literature to the general public? Is this even possible? ... During the past few months, I have spent entire days locked up in my office, writing my first manuscript to be submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. While doing so, I have come to realize the following: details can change everything. There are a number of assumptions I have been forced to make while analyzing my data, many of which are critical for both my methodology and the development of few of my arguments. Why? Often, the information I require simply isn't available (the studies haven't been done, or the studies that exist are based on assumptions of their own). Now, can someone unfamiliar with a particular field, nay, a sub-discipline of that field, recognize these assumptions for what they are?"
Don't you mean that honest (science) journalism just doesn't sell well?
It's more like corporate controlled news aims to indoctrinate, not educate. It's not because they don't have the money or the time. It's not that their broadcast grants does not require them to eat the cost of educational broadcast, so that IT SHOULD NOT BE MADE INTO ENTERTAINMENT AND BE FOR PROFIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's that they have an agenda and won't train and pay people to violate it. Truth and information rarely come from corporate controlled media. Instead of information, you will be repeatedly bombarded with nonsense.
The march to war in Afganistan, Iraq and now Iran present tremendous media news failures. Even the most harried reporter knows they were lied to in Iraq but they still pump out the party line.
The charade of "press conferences" is another example of people playing along. Everyone sits in a room and raises their hand, knowing the questions and questioners have been approved in advance. Anyone who would dare to ask an unapproved question would get themselves and their news organization banned and harassed.
Corporate controlled, government censored media is not free and little truth comes out of it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
If your research is in a special field of study, in fact a sub field, what makes you think people not interested in that sub-field would consider your work news worthy? I mean people interested in your general field of work might not even find it news worthy.
It's amazing what can be found using google these days- cross specialty research can be useful in it's own right.
News is about how something impacts people. It's like the difference between science and engineering. Science is how things work in the world. Engineering is how we use those rules to human ends.
I think you just answered your first question- engineers outside of your science specialty will need to understand your paper to use your advancement to create better designs.
Second, science isn't the only complicated endeavour in the world, yet somehow you read articles about politics, law, economics and finance everyday. They just don't try and explain the wonky bits.
Actually, I'm very interested in the wonky bits- and often find the same problem with those articles as well (that they fail to include their assumptions). Economists are especially bad at admitting their assumptions- I think there's a subconscious fear that if they did, we'd all recognize that what they do isn't science but rather religion.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"Jesus Christ's lesson for Science: everything in moderation."
;) ).
I don't know which Jesus you are talking about. The last I checked, the Jesus I believe in was, and is an extremist.
Most Christians (especially the "extremist" ones) don't do a good job of following what Jesus says.
Bombing abortion clinics, spreading hate and violence are on a different extreme from his teachings - which are on the other extreme.
After all he did say in Matthew 5:21-22
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
[a] Matthew 5:21 Exodus 20:13
[b] Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother without cause
[c] Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:21-22&version=31;
Similarly for adultery:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
And: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"Be perfect" is as extreme as it gets. I don't see how you can be perfect in moderation (moderator quips notwithstanding