"There has never been a golden age of science journalism, but certainly there were more characters, better writers, more newsgathering zeal, and more originality in the recent past."
So writes a critic on The Huffington Post. Those are fighting words--and tired words. We've heard these criticisms before, and I should probably ignore them, but, as The Dude put it in The Big Lebowski, "This will not stand, man."
The critic is David Whitehouse, whose HuffPo bio says that he is an astrophysicist, a former BBC science correspondent, and the author of four books. Despite those bona fides, his criticism echoes down the line as if it were coming to us via a bad connection from the 20th Century.
He begins his argument with the contention that "science, and communicating science, is too important to be left to the scientists." It's unclear whether he believes that, or whether he's setting that up as an observation that he wants to challenge. In any case, as anyone who reads news online now knows, scientists are communicating to the public more broadly and effectively than ever before. Where once Carl Sagan stood, a thousand blogs now bloom. Science communication is clearly not too important to be left to the scientists.
With regard to his claim about "more characters, better writers, more newsgathering zeal," etc., in the past, Whitehouse doesn't offer examples. I'm prepared to say that he is flat wrong--and I was there. We had good science writers then; we have many more of them now. As an example, I offer the finalists in the Open Laboratory 2012 competition for best science writing online. Browse though them, and you will likely conclude what I did: We should not lament the loss of a once-upon-a-time science-writing Camelot. The time is now. This is Camelot.
Whitehouse continues:
I remember doing science journalism before the internet when we used fax, phone, crude email and ingenuity. Each science journalist on each outlet, be it broadcast or print, was working by the dead reckoning of their judgment.
I remember writing Nobel Prize stories for the AP from New York before the Internet, when an overworked AP reporter in Stockholm--one without any science-writing background--tried to explain over the phone what he thought the prize was awarded for, and I tried to make enough sense of it to write the story within minutes of the announcement. Under those circumstances, my dead reckoning was sometimes dead wrong. Ingenuity is great, but I'll take the Internet.
Whitehouse also makes the odd argument that the widespread availability of science news has led news outlets to become "bland clones" of one another. To me, the situation seems quite the opposite. With fewer restrictions on science news, the big news organizations can no longer manipulate the supply chain and dominate the coverage. With expanded competition, news organizations and science writers now have more incentive than ever to do good work.
I will grant Whitehouse a couple of points. Reporters are, as he says, far too dependent upon press releases. But that has always been true. And he says that too many science writers have become supporters, not reporters, of science. I've made the same argument myself. Writers and bloggers have every right to be supporters of science, if they choose, but we need a strong corps of reporters who see themselves as critics, shedding light in dark corners. It's fun--and important in a democratic society--to take a break from covering science news that everyone likes (Kepler 22B) and to write stories that nobody wants to see (as in many posts on Retraction Watch).
The only example that Whitehouse uses to make his case is that of climate-change coverage. Environmental reporters, he writes, are "far too concerned with doing down those they define as sceptics." On the contrary, I would argue that skeptics have received far too much coverage.
Whitehouse concludes with a prescription that I hesitate to follow:
Journalists...should not look to scientists for guidance anymore than an artist asks a bowl of cherries for advice about how to draw them!
I wish Whitehouse well with that one. I have a science degree (a humble bachelor's in physics) but if I'm writing about the Kepler mission, as I did recently, I'm not going to rely on my own evidence to challenge what scientists are telling me. I don't have any evidence. If I had a Ph.D. in planetary science and had worked on the Kepler mission for 10 years, I'd still rely on the other scientists on the team to help me understand the findings.
Once I understand them, of course, the decision about whether to be a reporter or supporter of science is still up to me. And the responsibility to write it well rests solely on me. We should not look to scientists for guidance on that.
- Paul Raeburn
Comments
Wow, David is out of line. I completely agree. It sucks that he gets the publicity, and as a result, that's what the public sees.
As you can tell, I'm with you on this one; science journalism has never been better (in my opinion) because when there's so much written, we get to choose what we want to read, and as a result, we're reading much, much more high quality content.
Sorry if it sounds stupid, just trying to explain it the best I can.
Thanks Paul for posting on this topic and this essayist's opinion that our sci writing craft is in a big sag. I'd say it's on a winding and uncertain road, but the high end quality is just fine, as you (Paul) say, the variety greater than ever, and most important, the easy access to the huge variety makes it a distinct golden age for readers of science journalism.
Mr. Whitehouse puzzles me however when he writes that to be a proper reporter of science, one must not be a supporter of science. What a load. Supporting science does not mean one is a toady for the national academy, or anything that the local dept. of immunology puts in a press release, or a defender of the NIH budget on blind faith. Reporters who dig into the pollution caused by agriculture, or those who reveal con men in bankers' gray suits, or who uncover graft at the state house, probably also support the continued existence of effective and efficient agriculture, economic systems, and the practice of governance -- and the scientific process too. Science is at heart nothing but logic and data. We're supposed to be indifferent to the continued existence of logic and data? It is perfectly okay, nay preferable, that a science writer know the difference between good science and shady or sloppy science, and favor good science. After all, bad science is not science any more. The rules are pretty plain - disinteresed gathering of data, accurate statistics, properly composed conclusions, and willingness to re-examine one's conclusions if colleagues declare one is full of it. Do I support that kind of science? You bet. This is not like of jingo patriotism - my country right or wrong. People may argue whether a result is from good or bad science, but the assumption can be that everybody however it is defined ought to support good science.
And yeh, my opinion as a supporter of science is that if Whitehouse is among the advocates of what most rationalists regard as mostly-bad science, as circulated by outfits such as the Heartland Institute in its hostility to taking climate change as a human caused serious problem, it ought to have been disclosed.
Thanks Paul for posting on this topic and this essayist,s opinion that our sci writing craft is in a big sag. I'd say it's on a winding and uncertain road, but the high end quality is just fine, as you (Paul) say, the variety greater than ever, and most important, the easy access to the huge variety makes it a distinct golden age for readers of science journalism.
Mr. Whitehouse puzzles me however when he writes that to be a proper reporter of science, one must not be a supporter of science. What a load. Supporting science does not mean one is a toady for the national academy, or anything that the local dept. of immunology puts in a press release, or a defender of the NIH on blind faith. Reporters who dig into the pollution caused by agriculture, or those who reveal con men in bankers' gray suits, or who uncover graft at the state house, probably also support the continued existence of effective and efficient agriculture, economic systems, and the practice of governance -- and the scientific process too. Science is at heart nothing but logic and data. We're supposed to be indifferent to the continued existence of logic and data? It is perfectly okay, nay preferable, that a science writer know the difference between good science and shady or sloppy science, and favor good science. After all, bad science is not science any more. The rules are pretty plain - disinteresed gathering of data, accurate statistics, properly composed conclusions, and willingness to re-examine one's conclusions if colleagues declare one is full of it. Do I support that kind of science? You bet. This is not like of jingo patriotism - my country right or wrong. People may argue whether a result is from good or bad science, but the assumption can be that everybody however it is defined ought to support good science.
And yeh, my opinion as a supporter of science is that if Whitehouse is among the advocates of what most rationalists regard as mostly-bad science, as circulated by outfits such as the Heartland Institute in its hostility to taking climate change as a human caused serious problem, it ought to have been disclosed.
David,
I'm glad to hear, anecdotally, that you were gratified by the response to your column. I'll take your word for it and assume that much of that praise came from your readers at GWPF, which wouldn't be too surprising.
I wouldn't mind hearing what was inaccurate about my criticism (in fact, I agreed with you on a number of points).
Your discussion of climate science was the one and only example, as noted by Paul Raeburn, used to advance your argument. I asked if you thought the Guardian or WSJ would require you to disclose your current affiliation, if they had published the same column. You never answered.
The piece is critical of science journalism, climate science is but one paragraph among many. For your information, when I do write pieces specifically about climate science I always mention the GWPF.
I am very glad at the overwhelming number of responses I have had about it, all bar a few very positive, as a contribution to a much needed debate about science journalism. It has also resulted in much praise for my journalistic approach to reporting climate science on the GWPF, a great many having read it when it was posted on the GWPF's website.
I think you are, as they say, flogging a dead horse, and also that you could be more accurate in your criticism.
David Whitehouse,
If you wrote an op-ed such as you did--critical of science journalists, specifically related to climate reporting--For the WSJ or the Guardian, do you think it would be "grubby" of them to insist that you list your "science editor" position with a well known climate skeptic think tank?
There is only a limited space on the Huffington Post for credentials, and I filled it up.
It would need something substantially bigger to include all my credentials and awards for science journalism. It's lack of space not lack of full disclosure, though to certain kinds of grubby journalists it can be twisted as such.
I have been commenting on, sometimes criticising, science journalism long before I started writing about climate science, which is no secret.
Take a look at the subjects I have written about on the Huffington Post.
Paul,
Any post that includes a reference to the The Dude is worth reading in of itself.
Seriously, I found your retort spot on, and have referenced it in this post, which also includes discussion of the recent editorial in Nature:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/12/09/a-critic-of-science-journalism...
The second half of my post also examines what appears to be a lack of full disclosure of David Whitehouse's affiliation with a well known UK climate skeptic think tank (where he serves as "science editor"). I happen to think that mention of that in his Huffpo bio is warranted by the subject of his column. Curious thing that it got left out. Would like to hear from David why that was and why that remains the case, given that he has a new HuffPo piece out today.
A disappointing response to my post, which was not a repeat of my views originally expressed.
For example. The idea that one choses to be a reporter or supporter of science in the way described is fundamentally incompatible with journalism (except perhaps the kind carried out by Fox News.) I am very surprised that anyone involved in journalism would see this as in any way acceptible.
Science journalists need a range of skills, and I'm not talking about the silly example given of 'challenging' astronomers on the science of the Kepler mission. But competence in basic statistics, for example, should be one of those skills so that science journalists can ask about , and understand, statistical significance etc. There are many examples of sloppy statistics being misused in press releases that go unchallenged by science journalists. That is when a science journalist should challenge.
In many areas, especially climate science, the science has become politicised. When that happens it is up to the science journalist to act as a brake, to bring the reporting back to science. Few seem to have the skill to do this, or even realise it is happening.
Also, it's always been the case that more go into science journalism than make a living out of it. It's like acting, if you want to do it, nothing will stop you.
I tell students that if you can do anything else, anything, do that rather than being a writer. But if you can't bear a life doing anything else then you might have the passion to take the ups and downs.
Fo my part I was a professional scientist, though have always written. I have often been a freelancer, but never, ever an unpaid one, even when starting out.
I am certainly not saying that "all is lost", but you can't compare those two time periods. I am talking about a time, today, where there is a lot, lot, lot, more of freelancers, which are beginning their careers with fees that are sometimes the same fees... than when you began in journalism!
The fact that a few of them will be able to make a living mask the fact that the market is much more difficult, much more unbalanced for journalists, much more precarious, with a lot, lot more of people for which journalism is a revolving door, no matter if they are doing good work or not. The economic situation is a variable that we too often forget when thinking about the future of science writing.
When I started out in journalism, I was an underpaid freelancer. (Not-paid blogging didn't exist then, of course, but I'm sure I would done it if I could have.)
Somehow, I've cobbled together a career from my humble beginnings. And I suspect many of today's freelancers and bloggers will do the same. All is not lost.
There are two things both of you are forgetting.
1) While there are more science writers (if we combine journalists, bloggers, citizens, etc.) a lot of them are underpaid freelancers or not-paid bloggers, which is not a guarantee of a so-good future: less long-term views, more reliances on press releases from the biggest institutions and less distance from the sources.
2) While a lot of them are doing a very good work, a lot of them are also talking to specialized or even very specialized audiences. That may be the future: more and more specialized audiences, outlets talking not only to people already interested in science, but also people sharing the same political views.
I read this as mostly repeating the points you made in your original post. I don't have anything to add.
There is much food for thought here, though I don't find many of the points cogent.
My comment that science communication is too important to be left to scientists, which I agree with and am not setting up a straw man argument, is a reflection of the comment attributed to Richard Dawkins that science journalism is too important to be left to journalists. That comment is a bit of a tautology, and my article stressed that not everyone who writes/blogs about science is a journalist.
Thanks to the Internet the range of science communication is wider than ever, and closer to the science and the public. But journalism is not science communication, and as far as science journalism is concerned, today is not Camelot.
The journalism, news gathering, scoops required, zeal has not in general survived into the Internet age, and far from leaving it in the 20th century, I fell we need it now. Such qualities are seen as essential for other areas of journalism, and I believe they should be part of science journalism.
The Open Lab 2012 showcases much fine writing, but I must say I am not overwhelmed by much of it, and I don't think much of it is journalism. As for expanded competition and incentives provided by the Internet just look at the science news coverage over here, BBC, Times, Independent, Telegraph etc. There is not much variation there, and no obvious competition visible in these similar outlets.
I will take the Internet anyway, but even before it no prepared science journalist would ever get the science of the Nobel prize winners wrong.
I think Environmental Science reporting has been blighted by an obsession with climate sceptics, and has failed to reflect the true nature of scientific scepticism, and of the progress of climate science.
My comment about a bowl of cherries was about journalism. Why would I ask a scientist about the craft of journalism? Sure they may have their own opinions about journalism, but they are not journalists, even if a few are arrogant enough to think that journalism is easier than science.
Once one knows the science, no serious science reporter would ever make a decision to be either a supporter or a reporter of science. Either side is incompatible with journalism.
The dire state of science journalism is a 21st century problem. We should be debating it and I applaud the author of this article for engaging in it in such a thoughtful way.