A reporter who actually gets it right...

What form of media do you get your science news from?

  • Newspaper science section

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Evening news

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Cable news channel

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Radio

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Popular magazines

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Blogs

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Online feeds (RSS, Digg, etc.)

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Science-content websites

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
This guy really nailed it. It explains the problem precisely with how reporters now create their narratives, and strive for a balance. Except it's not a narrative balanced or tempered with objective truth, but rather the extreme ends of spectrums where the middle road exists only half-way between the extremists, which is not necessary, or even likely. So, I'll post the article in it's entirety. It's that damn good!

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

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 "challenges".

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.

In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won't provide a link because either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can't be bothered, or c) the journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually published.

"Basically, this is a brief soundbite," the scientist will say, from a department and university that I will give brief credit to. "The existing science is a bit dodgy, whereas my conclusion seems bang on" she or he will continue.

I will then briefly state how many years the scientist spent leading the study, to reinforce the fact that this is a serious study and worthy of being published by the BBC the website.

This is a sub-heading that gives the impression I am about to add useful context.

Here I will state that whatever was being researched was first discovered in some year, presenting a vague timeline in a token gesture toward establishing context for the reader.

To pad out this section I will include a variety of inane facts about the subject of the research that I gathered by Googling the topic and reading the Wikipedia article that appeared as the first link.

I will preface them with "it is believed" or "scientists think" to avoid giving the impression of passing any sort of personal judgement on even the most inane facts.

This fragment will be put on its own line for no obvious reason.

In this paragraph I will reference or quote some minor celebrity, historical figure, eccentric, or a group of sufferers; because my editors are ideologically committed to the idea that all news stories need a "human interest", and I'm not convinced that the scientists are interesting enough.

At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimisation experts have determined that humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one.

This picture has been optimised by SEO experts to appeal to our key target demographics

This subheading hints at controversy with a curt phrase and a question mark?

This paragraph will explain that while some scientists believe one thing to be true, other people believe another, different thing to be true.

In this paragraph I will provide balance with a quote from another scientist in the field. Since I picked their name at random from a Google search, and since the research probably hasn't even been published yet for them to see it, their response to my e-mail will be bland and non-committal.

"The research is useful", they will say, "and gives us new information. However, we need more research before we can say if the conclusions are correct, so I would advise caution for now."

If the subject is politically sensitive this paragraph will contain quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public "controversy" exists.

This paragraph will provide more comments from the author restating their beliefs about the research by basically repeating the same stuff they said in the earlier quotes but with slightly different words. They won't address any of the criticisms above because I only had time to send out one round of e-mails.

This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

The final paragraph will state that some part of the result is still ambiguous, and that research will continue.

Related Links:
The Journal (not the actual paper, we don't link to papers)
The University Home Page (finding the researcher's page would be too much effort).
[link removed to a Rick roll]
Special interest group linked to for balance

So, that's pretty much the standard that the media uses these days for reporting science stories, though I think it would be fair to say that it's not just science stories that get treated in this fashion by media outlets. The sad part is that we rely on media in one form or another to dispense stories informing us about science, or at best rather informing us of a new controversy. There's very little science context in the media, except the framing of two sides to a story, and the narrative the journos stick to.

In this case I am shooting the messenger, because the messenger is the problem. Colpy is fair to question CBC's reporting on the gun registry. The timing was perfect, the result was obvious.

So, I'm actually curious to find out where people get their science news from?

 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
This guy really nailed it.
He sure did. I long ago gave up expecting to get any real science from newspapers or tv news, though I concede that every now and then the Toronto Globe&Mail does a decent job of reporting some new finding. Commercial radio's no better, I ticked Radio only because of CBC's "Quirks and Quarks" program, which I rarely miss. There are several pretty good popular science magazines, though Popular Science isn't often one of them, it's more about technology than science. Discover I like, Scientific American's usually got something interesting in it, there are a couple of astronomy mags I find useful and interesting as well, and I think I'd include Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer here too, though they're not strictly science magazines. And their web sites of course. I've also got a couple of dozen other web sites saved in the "Reference" sub section of my bookmarks, on everything from archeology to string theory. In the "Other" category are all the books I buy. They're not exactly news in the strict sense, but they are detailed examinations of some part of science, such as Richard Dawkins' recent The Greatest Show on Earth.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I specifically had Quirks and Quarks in mind when I listed radio. MacDonald does a very good job of actually reporting the science, and including the relevant context. He is well liked by another source I use, Knight Science Journalism Tracker. The majority of the content I browse is on-line. ScienceDaily, ScienceBlogs, Nature News, the tracker listed above.

As a knit to pick, I hate Google News for science news. The tab for science is also the tab for technology, and the information/mobile phone/tech news seems to dominate. They really ought to make a larger distinction between the two...
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
I specifically had Quirks and Quarks in mind when I listed radio. MacDonald does a very good job of actually reporting the science, and including the relevant context. He is well liked by another source I use, Knight Science Journalism Tracker. The majority of the content I browse is on-line. ScienceDaily, ScienceBlogs, Nature News, the tracker listed above.

As a knit to pick, I hate Google News for science news. The tab for science is also the tab for technology, and the information/mobile phone/tech news seems to dominate. They really ought to make a larger distinction between the two...

Media, print media in particular, which also includes web papers no longer have science reporters due to cut backs. Most science stories or stories related to science are done by commentators...Peter Worthington is doing science related stories for crying out loud.:roll:

Btw, I subscribe to the Quirks and Quarks podcast.....and in fairness to Captain, Petros, Walt and Satchie I realize of course that Bob Mcdonald is part of the conspiracy and works for the Communist Broadcasting Corperation which is of course run by climatologists and Jews.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I recognize that format. I see it a lot from Stretch, and, despite it not being scientific usually, Blackleaf as well.
 

gingersnap

Nominee Member
Oct 18, 2009
90
3
8
Vancouver
Btw, I subscribe to the Quirks and Quarks podcast.....and in fairness to Captain, Petros, Walt and Satchie I realize of course that Bob Mcdonald is part of the conspiracy and works for the Communist Broadcasting Corperation which is of course run by climatologists and Jews.
Climatologists and Jews? I can see an argument made for a liberal bias within CBC, but Jews? Where the heck is that coming from?

Or were you being sarcastic?
 

Bcool

Dilettante
Aug 5, 2010
383
2
18
Vancouver Island B.C.
Still LOL here.... CBC who????

That reporter should be given a medal! Good stuff!

Ok, books I now have to struggle with - I used to gobble them down like candy. ::sigh:: (Meds causing concentration difficulties with print medium.) Newspapers just can't. Anyhoo: presently working on "Musicophilia" by Oliver Sacks & have "The G*d Delusion" by Richard Dawkins waiting for its turn. Q & Q has been on how long now? Anyway, not long enough, never will be. :smile: Although now I must admit I do most of my listening and viewing on my laptop to just about everything.

No-one mentioned "Ted Talks", super stuff - peoples like Vilayanur S. "Rama" Ramachandran (a Tamil BTW :::koff:: ), Asher Hasan, Stephen Hawking, Oliver Sacks, Bill Gates, Jane Goodall, lesser knowns - oodles of fascinating people.... I use PubMed & MedLine a lot, although I don't usually give URL ref's for them here. Should I? Rather than use the magazine URLs that many seem to prefer? The Devil's Dictionary Dot Com fer instance?? ;-)

Blogs: read a few at places like Dawkin's site; Science Daily's site; On The Commons; Forum of Federations; BBC Earth News; Huffington Post; Solutions from evidence and logic etc, etc., & so forth....

TV has become a wasteland IMO with a few exceptions: lots more documentaries although I check the credits on some that seem a bit fishy to me - too many b****y corp's funding doc's that are biased towards their nefarious purposes. Naughty! More hard hitting satire than there used to be but the downside being there are more 'fruitcake' personalities & channels too. Sheesh! News, well its ridiculous really, five seconds on no crops on the prairies & flooding in B.C. and ten minutes on the latest on Lindsay Lohan!! Although we've kind of lucked in here. CTV/Global decided to dump it's very popular Victoria channel CHEK TV - outraged wrinklies waving brollies notwithstanding! So much to their amazement the CHEK staff plus a whole slew of Global's well known & lesser known's own staff including Tony Parsons pooled their money & free time &, with an unusually cooperative CRTC rushing the approval, bought the station & had it up & running in four days! An independent news channel! WOW! I watch that news. :D

Will do the poll now...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
TED talks, yes I forgot about that. I watch those semi-regularly, basically whenever an interesting topic comes up. The last one I watched was about using social network theory for faster detection of disease outbreaks. I think the example they used, they could detect H1N1 nearly a month earlier.

I was thinking of applying the social network theory to our workplace, to better identify where the constraints are in our project pipelines. Still working on it before I show my management team.