That cancer-risk story that ran over the holidays drew a lot of criticism, for the scientists that authored the underlying study and the reporters who wrote that two-thirds of all cancers are caused by bad luck. Now, Science's Jennifer Couzin-Frankel writes about what went wrong: "Distilling the story — with space constraints, with a desire for clear writing that will hold readers’ attention and help them understand — carries risks for scientists and for journalists."
Science writing news
Sharon Bially warns authors of a trap awaiting them in self-publishing — paying for unnecessary services: "Service providers don’t just offer add-ons, but either require them or make it very difficult for authors to turn them down. For example, a publishing provider who requires authors to sign up and pay for a developmental editor before submitting or re-submitting work. Or who recommends adamantly that authors hire an independent publicist to promote their books."
The NASW Education Committee is again sponsoring its annual mentoring program during the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Jose, Feb. 12-16. We will pair mentors with students in graduate science writing programs or with undergraduates who have demonstrated a serious interest in science journalism. Use the "read more" link to learn more and apply as either a mentor or a student.
If you believe Scott Carney's back-of-the-envelope math, it's vanishingly small: "The total market for long-form journalism in major magazines in America is approximately $3.6 million. To put it another way: The collective body of writers earned less than Butch Jones, a relatively unknown college football coach, earned in a single year." It didn't take long, however, for Carney's numbers to draw a skeptical reaction. Details from Romenesko.
Sam Stephenson interviews Dr. C.O. Simpkins about his 1975 biography of John Coltrane, and Simpkins describes how he handled his book's tense racial context: "The audience I developed in my mind’s eye was an audience of black children, as though I was talking to my own children. Something about writing for children imposed an absolute truth in my effort. I thought that was the best way for me to put the truth out there without any compromise."
Tabitha M. Powledge rounds up the last best-of lists, including one from Eurekalert, which said the year's most-visited press release was about disclosing details of wages for public officials: "I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that the most-visited science press release of 2014 was not about Ebola or landing on comets nor indeed anything from the hard or biomedical sciences. To the extent that it was scientific at all, it emanated from the Dismal Science."
How do you find an agent? What material should you send? Those questions on NASW-Books generated this recent exchange and tips from NASW authors.
Jane Friedman discusses the procedure — and likely costs — of getting permission to reuse copyrighted materials: "When I worked at a mid-size publisher, we advised authors to be prepared to pay $1,000-$3,000 for all necessary permissions fees if they were quoting regularly and at length. (Publishers don’t cover permissions fees, except in special cases.) You can avoid paying permissions fees by staying within fair use guidelines." She includes a sample request letter.
Alexis Sobel Fitts discusses why increasing numbers of news web sites — Pacific Standard, the Huffington Post, the Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times — are doing away with comments or making them less prominent: "When Popular Science did it first, in September 2013, the internet response was mostly negative or incredulous. But it’s becoming increasingly commonplace as more discussion gets outsourced to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other parts of the social Web."