ON THE LISTS

by Bob Finn

nasw-talk

"The mission of the journalist is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable."
We've all heard that motto, but to what extent is it an accurate reflection of the job of the science journalist? Of any journalist? That was the subject of a lengthy and impassioned debate on nasw-talk late in May.

It started with a joke. In the midst of a discussion too convoluted and arcane to recount here, John Gever said, "Just doing my job as a journalist: afflicting the comfortable. (I'm only working half?days. I'll comfort the afflicted when I go back to full time.)"

Mike Lemonick quickly pounced, saying that he regarded the motto as a crock when he first heard it on his first day of J-school. He went on to write that the motto was highly misleading "because much of science journalism doesn't fit that prescription. Under that blanket definition, people who write about geology, paleontology, astronomy, oceanography, and archaeology, to name just a few, would not be legitimate journalists." And so the fight was on.

David Lawrence wrote, "Afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted might be a journalist's ultimate mission--I have no problem with that-but that doesn't mean that every story ever filed has to do one or the other."

Dan Ferber said that he preferred two other definitions of the journalist's job: to shed light in dark places and to serve as storyteller for the tribe. Those are definitions, noted Mike approvingly, that would encompass science journalism.

But others argued that science journalism could indeed fit within the comfort/afflict schema.
No one seems to have noticed that if you apply strict logical criteria, when you start out afflicting the comfortable and then move on to comforting the afflicted, you end up comforting the comfortable. On the other hand, if you begin by comforting the afflicted and only then go onto afflicting the comfortable, the end result is that you're afflicting the afflicted. That's the trouble with nice-sounding mottos: they don't always stand up to logical scrutiny.

The discussion started with John Gever's message on May 22, 2001 under the header "Re: state jokes." It continued under that header and a number of others, including "Comfort and affliction" and "journalists' mission."

nasw-freelance

Emma Patten-Hitt came upon a booklet called A Guide to Careers in Science Writing at the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing Web site. In that booklet she found a paragraph both inaccurate and insulting. The paragraph reads, in part:

Freelance science journalists . . . are undoubtedly the most poorly paid science writers. They usually earn about $1 per word for magazine articles and even less for newspaper articles. A 3,000-word magazine article may take a month to produce, and one such article per month translates into a $36,000 annual salary for an experienced freelancer. Thus, freelancers may either juggle a great many assignments to make ends meet, may hold a staff job and freelance on the side, or may have a supporting spouse."

Emma argued that some aspiring freelancers would be discouraged from pursuing their chosen career by this paragraph and that she counted herself among the many writers who earn more than $36K.

But others argued that perhaps a certain degree of discouragement was in order, since it really is difficult for beginning freelancers to make a living, and a dose of reality is needed.

And then the discussion got down to meat and potatoes as one successful freelancer after another described various strategies for earning more than $36K. Julie Stockler, for example, gave specific advice on how to get hooked up writing regulatory submissions for pharmaceutical companies.

Emma wrote a long paragraph containing many of her secrets for establishing a lucrative freelance career. Among them: "Do whatever it takes to impress new clients (and old clients for that matter) so that they consider using you again. NEVER turn down work. Pitch. Visit your clients at least once if possible so they know you by more than just your name. Send out 50 or more e-mails/letters each week with your resume and samples. Send freelance applications to full time positions (make sure you tell them you know it's full time but...). Network."

A few people quarreled with some of Emma's advice, particularly her admonition never to turn down work. Joel Shurkin, for example, responded with a paradox of Talmudic beauty when he claimed that as a freelancer his income began increasing as soon as he began turning down work. (Hmm, does that imply that as you approach the limit of turning down all work, your income will approach infinity?)

This discussion started on May 29, 2001 with Emma's e-mail, subject header "casw freelance paragraph." It continued under that subject header and under "freelancers" and "Freelancing."

#

Bob Finn moderates NASW's Web site and e-mail lists at nasw.org. His e-mail address is cybrarian@nasw.org.