Cristine Russell reports in CJR on survey results and other news from last weekend's NASW-sponsored Solutions Summit for Women in Science Writing: "A science writers' bill of rights, an online clearinghouse on sexual harassment, mentoring networks, updated codes of conduct, and efforts to reduce tokenism were among the practical strategies that attendees at last weekend's conference recommended to help educate both science writers and employers about gender issues."
Issues in science writing
SciDev.Net Director Nick Ishmael Perkins observes World Press Freedom Day by reflecting on how science writing is affected by censorship — and self-censorship, a "common practice among science journalists. If you anticipate that your attempts to cover a story might result in alienation, or reprimand, from the expert sources you depend on or the media outlet that pays you, then you may have to make a judgement call about that problem relative to society's need to know."
Paige Brown responds to a recent Neil DeGrasse Tyson interview with Miles O'Brien in which Tyson objected to journalists who state their opinions: "Why would you or I want to hear the news of a space shuttle launch from O'Brien's perspective over that of any other science journalist? Precisely because of his extensive experience, his ability to put the report in historical context, and his ability to give us informed opinions about the launch because of his experience."
Brenda Goodman discusses the recent MRI study of the brains of 20 marijuana smokers and wonders why scientists often insert caveats into their studies, only to abandon them at other times, such as when talking to reporters writing stories about their work: "Presumably, the same person who adds these cool-headed cautions in the study text is the one you’re talking to when they tell you that based on their study, it certainly looks like pot smoking changes the brain."
The latest study on resveratrol — the substance that allegedly makes red wine a health food — led Virginia Hughes to wonder about all the conflicting reports: "I suspect a general reader is not coming away from those saying, 'Gee whiz, look at the long and bumpy road to scientific progress!' They’re more likely to be saying, 'When will those scientists get their act together?'" Also, Gary Schwitzer sums up seven years of health news reviews.
Climate change first got major media attention in 1988, but it didn't take long for the fossil fuels industry to start its counterattack, and news coverage soon receded into a flawed "fair and balanced" posture, Robert S. Eshelman writes in CJR: "Climate change doubters in those years were taking a page from the fight against the regulation of tobacco products, urging newspapers and radio and television networks to provide 'balance' in their reporting of the science."
Double X Science LLC, a consortium of science writers spearheading the 'Women in Science Writing: Solutions Summit,’ which is sponsored by an NASW Idea Grant, has designed a survey to gain an understanding of the attitudes, experiences, and the role of gender for all science writers. Read more and consider participating in the survey by May 12.
Brenda Goodman tells the story of a press release that touted a study on the relationship between concussions and suicide attempts among teenagers. A good source for a topical story on the risks of sports? That's what Goodman and her editor thought, at least until she read the study: "Turns out, though, the research wasn't exactly about concussions. In fact, the word 'concussion' isn't used once in the entire study text, which was published in the journal PLoS One."
News sites that shun hyperlinks may be denying themselves valuable protection from defamation claims, Cindy Gierhart of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press writes on Poynter. Gierhart cites two court decisions in which links to other documents played key roles in shielding publishers from judgments: "Hyperlinking cannot put an end to all defamation claims. But given the recent court decisions, news media may want to rethink their hyperlinking strategy."
Why did it take the Environmental Protection Agency almost a week to answer questions about that West Virginia chemical spill? Two staffers from the Society of Environmental Journalists pose that question in a critique of the agency's press practices. Meanwhile, two other journalism organizations issue a report saying that PIOs increasingly "require pre-approval for interviews, decide who reporters get to interview and often monitor interviews."