Generally it takes a subpoena for the government to do searches or seizures of a journalist's work product or documents. But it's an open question whether the protections of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 also extend to documents stored on servers managed by the likes of Google or Amazon, Jonathan W. Peters writes in the Columbia Journalism Review. "We no longer live in the 1980-world where the PPA was passed. It needs to enter the digital era," Peters says.
Science writing news
It looked as if aggregation and social networking would render editors obsolete. But in this Sparksheet post, Karyn Campbell says professional editors are poised for a comeback: “The web has become too big and noisy,” she writes. “While algorithms once threatened to replace gatekeepers, online media will see a move back to the future: professional, human filters (the artists formerly known as editors) will play an integral role in the next web after all."
Beth Macy's story about an Air Force veteran's death was a challenge to report because her sources were both traumatized and estranged: "I don’t want to do another story like this ... When I read it again the other day, it didn’t sound like the way I normally write. So it leaves me a little cold, but I guess the whole thing leaves me cold because every little piece of it was emotionally draining to do." Editors discuss.
Now we know why the holiday shopping season was so strong. Everybody was buying tablets and e-readers. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that ownership of one or both devices rose from 18% of U.S. adults in December to 29% in January as competition picked up and prices dropped: "These findings are striking because they come after a period from mid-2011 into the autumn in which there was not much change in the ownership of tablets and e-book readers."
Susan G. Komen for the Cure looks to be on life-support after defunding Planned Parenthood. A new theory-of-everything calls into question the peer-review process and institutional public-information offices. Yet more on #SciO12: the music video, the enemies of science, and making book on e-books.
An essay in PLoS Medicine lays out an aggressive strategy for attacking ghostwriting abuses: Make everyone — including writers and scientists who lend their names and reputations to the ghostwritten articles — legally liable for resulting patient injuries: "Although guest authors and pharmaceutical defendants may argue a First Amendment right to participate in ghostwriting, the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly held that the First Amendment does not shield fraud."
Jim Romenesko posed that question after a retired editor blogged about staffers who are disengaged from their product. Responses include an Oscar Madison quote — “I don’t have to read the paper. I write the paper.” — and this from another retired editor: “I was always surprised how many of our reporters ... but relied only on the free Internet access. Can’t say I blame them. They are approaching their fifth year without a raise.”
Ananyo Bhattacharya got it started with this Guardian post, Nine ways scientists demonstrate they don't understand journalism. In the next round, two scientist/bloggers fired back here and here. But the last word goes to Ed Yong with his clever graphic, Every scientists-versus-journalists debate ever, in one diagram. Don't neglect to read the comments!
Travis Saunders at Science of Blogging surveyed his readers about the blog sites they visit most often, and he posted the results last week: "Scientopia and Scientific American appear to be the big winners, with Scienceblogs, Wired, Discover and PLoS BLoGs packed slightly behind, and the other networks getting a few votes each." One respondent: “I go to SciAm for the science, Scientopia for the culture, and SciBlogs for a sense of nostalgia.”