A new study in PLOS Medicine finds that journal abstracts are often a source of overly positive "spin" in the popular media: "Spin was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with spin in press releases was the presence of spin in the article abstract conclusion." More from Christie Wilcox, Gary Schwitzer, and Kent Anderson.
Issues in science writing
Has the plagiarism bug bitten the once-proud United Press International? A post from Paul Raeburn at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker suggests it may be so: "Several Science News reporters complained publicly on Facebook Thursday about what they say are repeated examples of misappropriation of their stories by UPI." It wasn't a first offense, Raeburn wrote as he tried to pin down UPI's editor. More from Raeburn, CJR.
It's central to U.S. copyright law but many journalists have scant knowledge of it. As a result, they seldom take advantage of the power that the "fair use" concept gives them, write four scholars from American University and the Center for Social Media: "Journalists, when in doubt, routinely self-censor, with the effect of delays, higher costs and even non-completion of journalistic mission." Also, commentary from the Poynter Institute.
Suppose a drug company trumpets a new product as reducing risk of a bad outcome by 33%. Should you take it? Maybe not, Trisha Greenhalgh writes in this PLOS post. Greenhalgh uses Twitter followers — as well as Aristotle — to help her explain why, in a form that makes sense to people without statistical expertise: “In sum, the use of the story form – with evil villains, powerless victims, trouble and things at stake – is a powerful tool for engaging learners.”
Paul Raeburn mines an interesting nugget from recent dustups over reporters who let sources review quotes and stories. He points out that Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli seems to be OK with science writers who let sources review their copy: "I think Brauchli’s special distinction for science writers reflects a common perception in newsrooms, namely that science is too difficult for most reporters to understand."
Poynter's Roy Peter Clark says he's become a cynic: "When I read or hear a scene in a story, for example, that seems too good to be true — like performance artist Mike Daisey’s exploited Chinese worker rubbing the stump of his hand over the magic surface of an iPad — I now assume it is NOT true." His prescription? A new Ten Commandments for narrative non-fiction — a list of rules designed to separate honest practitioners from the liars, fakers, and cheaters.
What's the proper role of science writers? That question was raised at the recent UK Conference of Science Journalists, and in this Guardian post, Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner comment on the debate: "As scientists we were puzzled by the implication that explaining and exposing are incompatible activities. Journalism as a whole must surely achieve both, just as science should expose flaws in existing theories while also explaining new data."
They may actually be hired guns or well-heeled lobbyists, Melanie Sloan says in a Nieman Reports interview: "On the surface, these people look like legitimate experts. And I think many journalists don't necessarily look at the motivations of their sources. It's obvious when you're talking to a political campaign, but other than that I don't think reporters look closely enough. You have to check the background. What can you find that legitimates their expertise?"
Ivan Oransky's Embargo Watch has some interesting detail about what went on behind the scenes before Sunday night's release of two Science papers on the Mono Lake bacteria that allegedly uses arsenic instead of phosphorus for growth. According to Oransky, some reporters were advised of the early release but others were not: "This paper wasn’t really 'for immediate release' — it was 'for immediate release if you didn’t know to ask for it in advance,'" he writes.
Videos have now been posted of four keynote speakers at Science Writing in the Age of Denial, an NASW-sponsored event April 23-24 in Madison. Wisc. The videos feature Arthur Lupia: "Communicating Science in Politicized Environments;" Sean B. Carroll: "The Denial of Evolution, and the Evolution of Denial: We Have All Been Here Before;" Gary Schwitzer: "Cheerleading, Shibboleths and Uncertainty;" and Naomi Oreskes: "Neoliberalism and the Denial of Global Warming."