Who decides what scientific research makes the news? Science writers, of course. Rachel Bernstein reviews a recent study on how well they're doing: "Editors from the New England Journal of Medicine found that reporters actually do a pretty good job covering the most important papers, at least when choosing among those published in their journal." But she adds that it may be time for writers to broaden their sources beyond high "impact factor" journals like NEJM.
Issues in science writing
While it's an easy way to call attention to a story, it's often inaccurate, or at least out of context, Paige Brown writes. Brown reviews recent news stories that used the word, especially in headlines, when it wasn't supported by the underlying science and sometimes not even by the text of the story itself: "I’d propose that science journalists should rarely if ever use this language to describe a finding, short of the researcher calling it so him- or herself."
In a provocative Embargo Watch post, Ivan Oransky draws a parallel between the current debate over national security leaks and the practice of embargo agreements for science news, which he calls "a case of journalists agreeing to let powerful institutions dictate terms of coverage in exchange for early access." In both cases, he writes, technology makes old practices obsolete. "If this comparison makes my science journalism colleagues — and me — uncomfortable, good."
More than half of neuroscientists in the U.S. — and even more in Germany — stand by the idea that scientific journals shouldn't publish research that has already been reported in the news media, according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper cited by Ivan Oransky's Embargo Watch. Oransky writes that the paper "explains why scientists err on the side of conforming to a strict version of the rule that journals don’t even support anymore."
Citing recent news stories based on flawed research, Andrew Gelman advises journalists to bullet-proof their reporting by seeking help from outside experts. "The point is not necessarily to interview an opponent of the study, or to present 'both sides' of the story, but rather to talk to independent scholars get their views and troubleshoot as much as possible. The experts might very well endorse the study, but even then they are likely to add more nuance and caveats."
When people cling to beliefs that are factually wrong, giving them more information isn't likely to set them straight, for reasons that are hard-wired into our brains. Science communicators need to recognize that, John Timmer writes on ArsTechnica: "People don't think the Earth is young because they haven't been exposed to sufficient evidence for its age; they want to believe that it's young because they feel a cultural affinity for other people who believe that way."
The National Press Club is gathering journalists and public information officers Aug. 12 in Washington, D.C., for a forum on government agencies that require reporters to conduct interviews via their press office. Details here. For background, see this survey of PIOs/PAOs, 39% of whom said they would block some reporters, and this survey of journalists, who called that censorship and an impediment to public information.
"Scientists adore it, for getting their voices heard. And many journalists appreciate how the non-profit organization provides accurate and authoritative material on deadline," Ewen Callaway writes in a Nature profile of the Science Media Center. But critics say the center, a concept now spreading to other countries, may "foster uncritical media coverage by spoon-feeding information to reporters," Callaway writes. Commentary from Keith Kloor.
Five countries have dedicated science media centers, designed to improve the flow of science news to the press and public. Reviews on their performances are mixed, so it's no surprise that CJR's Curtis Brainard and NASW President Ron Winslow of the Wall Street Journal differ on whether the U.S. needs one too. Also: How Japan's center performed during Fukushima; and whether the U.K. center really helps journalists.
Remember the news about dangerous lead levels in imported rice? Maybe so, but do you remember the followup, a few weeks later, when the "finding" was reported to be caused by faulty equipment? In a Forbes post, Emily Willingham critiques the early reporting and notes that several outlets missed some red flags: "Science is nothing without context. And there’s no reason at all not to tell readers, as soon as possible, if no peer review has vetted the information."