The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) has announced an 'expert group' to look at the state of science and the media in the UK. Your input is sought for an ABSW submission to the panel.
The Science and the Media Expert Group, set up by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and chaired by Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre, has prompted some lively discussion on the ABSW-L.
Sceptics have pointed out a number of limitations with the make-up of the group, its methods and its ultimate goals. As one of those sceptics, I have been asked to put together a ‘robust’ statement on behalf of the ABSW on the state of science journalism and what we can do to enhance it.
The ABSW represents a wide range of science writers, broadcasters and communicators and our members include many (if not most) of the UK’s best science journalists. Although I have my own views on the state of science journalism, and what might be done to improve things, they do not necessarily represent the wider views of the membership.
I am therefore after the views of you, the ABSW members. I am particularly keen to hear from journalists and those with experience of science news, newsrooms and how science is reported.
Please e-mail your contributions by the middle of September so I can put the statement together. The final submission will go to the ABSW Executive Committee for approval before it is submitted to the BIS group. I will also post updates in TSR.
I hope that we will have a wide range of thoughts, views and comments so that I can include as many different points of view as possible and, together, we can put forward the ‘robust’ case that the ‘expert’ group claims to be after.
Richard Hollingham
TSR Features Editor
Showing posts with label Science journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science journalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
COLUMN: My ABSW
Reflections on the World Conference of Science Journalists
At the end of June, the ABSW welcomed the 2009 World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) to London. Over 900 people attended, including myself (who had previously volunteered to help with the conference administration) and many other aspiring young science writers who volunteered their time to help steward and organise the event itself.
For me, the questions, debate and controversy were amongst the highlights. It gave us journalists the chance to do what we do best: 'scrutinise and challenge' on subjects from swine flu to the role of embargoes in science reporting and the economic sustainability of current publishing and journalism models.
As Pallab Ghosh, President of the World Federation of Science Journalists said in a speech, “In this time where there is so much free content, our job as journalists is to be constructively critical, ask awkward questions and be confident to have our own take on stories rather than simply trot out the agendas of campaign groups, revered scientific institutions or indeed our news editors."
I believe the significance and value of the conference should not be underestimated. The delegates from all over the world seemed invigorated by the chance to speak out on the long-term impact on the profession. Many acknowledged the need to change and improve the quality of science journalism on an international level. And a frequent mantra arising from sessions was the need to have international links and contacts to get the science coverage needed in an increasingly global news environment – something that events like this can help facilitate.
With all the inspiring discussions and the fantastic people I met, my personal experience of attending the conference was a joy. I volunteered with the conference committee for nine months and seeing the project develop from its early stages into a well-attended and interesting event was a personal delight.
The volunteer scheme encouraged and inspired a new generation of students to work in science journalism. They will tell others about the importance of good investigative journalism in this specialist field, and how science journalists can have their own voice, questioning and challenging any hype and bad science. I for one came away with new ideas and added motivation to make it as a science reporter.
Rachel Mundy
For more information, summaries and reports from WCSJ 2009 visit the WCSJ website and news site, as well as the Best of WCSJ 2009 round up of resources on the ABSW blog.
Got a story about your involvement with the ABSW? Contact us and let us know...
At the end of June, the ABSW welcomed the 2009 World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) to London. Over 900 people attended, including myself (who had previously volunteered to help with the conference administration) and many other aspiring young science writers who volunteered their time to help steward and organise the event itself.
For me, the questions, debate and controversy were amongst the highlights. It gave us journalists the chance to do what we do best: 'scrutinise and challenge' on subjects from swine flu to the role of embargoes in science reporting and the economic sustainability of current publishing and journalism models.
As Pallab Ghosh, President of the World Federation of Science Journalists said in a speech, “In this time where there is so much free content, our job as journalists is to be constructively critical, ask awkward questions and be confident to have our own take on stories rather than simply trot out the agendas of campaign groups, revered scientific institutions or indeed our news editors."
I believe the significance and value of the conference should not be underestimated. The delegates from all over the world seemed invigorated by the chance to speak out on the long-term impact on the profession. Many acknowledged the need to change and improve the quality of science journalism on an international level. And a frequent mantra arising from sessions was the need to have international links and contacts to get the science coverage needed in an increasingly global news environment – something that events like this can help facilitate.
With all the inspiring discussions and the fantastic people I met, my personal experience of attending the conference was a joy. I volunteered with the conference committee for nine months and seeing the project develop from its early stages into a well-attended and interesting event was a personal delight.
The volunteer scheme encouraged and inspired a new generation of students to work in science journalism. They will tell others about the importance of good investigative journalism in this specialist field, and how science journalists can have their own voice, questioning and challenging any hype and bad science. I for one came away with new ideas and added motivation to make it as a science reporter.
Rachel Mundy
For more information, summaries and reports from WCSJ 2009 visit the WCSJ website and news site, as well as the Best of WCSJ 2009 round up of resources on the ABSW blog.
Got a story about your involvement with the ABSW? Contact us and let us know...
Thursday, 25 June 2009
NEWS: 'Missing Link' found, heads lost
Ida the fossil made such a splash in the science world it was difficult to separate the scientific reality from the hype.
TSR readers – like everyone else – are unlikely to have missed the recent ground-breaking discovery: Idaa.k.a. Darwinius masillae a.k.a. the 'missing link'. Given the controversial territory of early primate origins, it is unsurprising that Ida sparked scientific debate. But debate within the media?
Few contested that Ida was indeed an important find and an astoundingly complete fossil. It even got Sir David Attenborough excited. And when was the last time a new scientific discovery inspired a Google logo?
Interestingly, the story was a non-story from the start, with the Daily Mail announcing their scoop over a week before the official unveiling in New York. This didn't stop reporters contacting press officers around the world about this 'worst kept secret', with calls for more information and non-disclosure agreements signed left, right and centre. This did little to aid science, but fueled the fire of a media frenzy --and one that some felt undermined the reputation of science journalists.
Both Nature and Science criticised the oversell of the paper and the 'missing link' claims by the researchers and the Public Library of Science press office, though interestingly not Atlantic Productions, the production company behind the History Channel and BBC documentaries on Ida. The blogosphere was less kind. Brian Switek posited that this may be the first in a long line of science hypotheses becoming accepted not through convincing evidence, but by flooding the media with eye-catching press releases. Carl Zimmer and PZ weighed in similarly, while the whole circus provided ample fuel for Ed Yong's satire.
Was the hype necessary? Is Ida really that great? We can now judge for ourselves, with a replica of the 47 million-year-old fossil on display at the Natural History Museum in London. One thing is for sure: the media storm got coverage (and visitors to the Natural History Museum, the American Museum of Natural History and their Oslo equivalent). There may well be more such 'revolutionary finds' to come (with critics no doubt asking, at what price?). Perhaps this is the future of science communication, with TV producers at the back, rubbing their hands.
Claire Gilby
Briefings, ABSW
TSR readers – like everyone else – are unlikely to have missed the recent ground-breaking discovery: Ida
Few contested that Ida was indeed an important find and an astoundingly complete fossil. It even got Sir David Attenborough excited. And when was the last time a new scientific discovery inspired a Google logo?
Interestingly, the story was a non-story from the start, with the Daily Mail announcing their scoop over a week before the official unveiling in New York. This didn't stop reporters contacting press officers around the world about this 'worst kept secret', with calls for more information and non-disclosure agreements signed left, right and centre. This did little to aid science, but fueled the fire of a media frenzy --and one that some felt undermined the reputation of science journalists.
Both Nature and Science criticised the oversell of the paper and the 'missing link' claims by the researchers and the Public Library of Science press office, though interestingly not Atlantic Productions, the production company behind the History Channel and BBC documentaries on Ida. The blogosphere was less kind. Brian Switek posited that this may be the first in a long line of science hypotheses becoming accepted not through convincing evidence, but by flooding the media with eye-catching press releases. Carl Zimmer and PZ weighed in similarly, while the whole circus provided ample fuel for Ed Yong's satire.
Was the hype necessary? Is Ida really that great? We can now judge for ourselves, with a replica of the 47 million-year-old fossil on display at the Natural History Museum in London. One thing is for sure: the media storm got coverage (and visitors to the Natural History Museum, the American Museum of Natural History and their Oslo equivalent). There may well be more such 'revolutionary finds' to come (with critics no doubt asking, at what price?). Perhaps this is the future of science communication, with TV producers at the back, rubbing their hands.
Claire Gilby
Briefings, ABSW
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
NEWS: Science journalism in crisis?
There was much discussion of the state of science journalism at this year's AAAS meeting.
At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in February this year, journalists gathered at an informal session to discuss the current and upcoming challenges for specialist science reporters, particularly in light of CNN's decision to axe their entire science, technology and environment news staff.
Organized by the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) and the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), the view of the panel was that some of the bad news in developed world journalism was being offset by good news elsewhere.
WFSJ Board Member Nadia El-Awady spoke of the healthy state of journalism in Africa and the Arab countries, contrasting bad news in the US reported by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review, and the state of play elsewhere.
But as Pallab Ghosh, Science Correspondent for BBC News and the current President of the WFSJ, pointed out, science journalists are needed now more than ever. Ghosh gave a presentation on how the media's representations of climate change and the associated politics are affecting debate in this area, highlighting the important role real science journalists have to play.
A full report on the event is available at The Columbia Journalism Review.
Sunny Bains
At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in February this year, journalists gathered at an informal session to discuss the current and upcoming challenges for specialist science reporters, particularly in light of CNN's decision to axe their entire science, technology and environment news staff.
Organized by the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) and the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), the view of the panel was that some of the bad news in developed world journalism was being offset by good news elsewhere.
WFSJ Board Member Nadia El-Awady spoke of the healthy state of journalism in Africa and the Arab countries, contrasting bad news in the US reported by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review, and the state of play elsewhere.
But as Pallab Ghosh, Science Correspondent for BBC News and the current President of the WFSJ, pointed out, science journalists are needed now more than ever. Ghosh gave a presentation on how the media's representations of climate change and the associated politics are affecting debate in this area, highlighting the important role real science journalists have to play.
A full report on the event is available at The Columbia Journalism Review.
Sunny Bains
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
