In February 2012, I wrote my first piece as a Tracker for the Knight Science Journalism program. If you know my fascination with all things poisonous, it won’t surprise you to know that it was about heavy metals in lipstick.
I had been recruited by former KSJ director Phil Hilts and I continued working for the Tracker –analyzing science stories, following reporting trends – for a year and a half before becoming overwhelmed by a book project. I am really proud of the work I did there and when I look at the range of subjects I explored – from red meat to autism, GMO-crops to lead contamination – I remember how hard I pushed myself to stay smart, keep up, do my home work, do it right.
It was one of the best jobs I’ve had in terms of challenging myself to stay smart about the way we report science. So when, as the incoming director of the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT, I realized that we were going to need to bring Tracker activities to a halt – at least temporarily – it was a very difficult decision. And I completely understand the unhappiness over that decision expressed in all the comments that followed the original announcement. And I also understand, in a very personal way, the unhappy farewell posts by other former Trackers. They are a remarkable and dedicated group of writers and that fact also made this an exceptionally difficult decision.
I’ve thought since that we could have done a better job of providing a sense of the complicated set of circumstances that went into the decision. My colleague, Wade Roush and I wanted to focus on all the positive reasons behind the move. But in the interests of accuracy – a Tracker standard – I’ll tell you also that there were other issues at play: some budget related (especially in the short term) and some personality related, and some purely logistical. Combined with our strong belief that we needed to move quickly on some of our plans to expand on the existing program, that led us to make the announcement now.
And the one thing I regret about the timing is that we ended up pausing the Tracker before we had the new version fully developed. It leaves us in the position of asking you to accept, on faith, that the new version will also be smart, challenging, useful, important. And I know accepting things on faith is something that journalists don’t do easily.
But I’ve been a science journalist a long time, working at newspapers big and small, magazines, websites, and blogs, and I am going to ask you to have some confidence in our ability to build something even more exceptional here. We aren’t at the point where we can provide details. We’re still putting up scaffolding. But everyone we have contacted as we put this together is as excited as we are about the ways that it will provide new resources, support, and information, for journalists today.
So I’d like to thank you for all the comments, which reminded us that what we do here is valued by the rest of you. And I’d like to invite you, if you wish, to also comment on things that you would like to see added on at the Tracker or elsewhere at the KSJ site. Have some faith – we’re in this together.
I have been a beneficiary of tracker posts all these years. Frankly, I have not understood or have failed to understand the real issues which come in the way of continuing Tracker in its present format. Deborah’s statement “that there were other issues at play: some budget related (especially in the short term) and some personality related, and some purely logistical.” gives some clues I have been waiting eagerly to figure out the causes which led to for the current crisis. Deborah’s assurance that one of the reasons is to develop a better product seems reassuring.
There are many areas of human interest occurring in several countries without any control. One such area is technology driven medicine. I believe that truly independent science journalists can make a real difference in the discourse.Exploiting vague statements appearing in scientific papers, smart people are starting companies to amuse the worried well. Stem cell therapy to genome mapping there are many fields which help these new start ups to make inroads into areas of profit. Where there are no robust regulations to over see the misuse the new born companies can fool the public.Massive advertisements on the benefits of genome mapping to diagnose life threatening diseases is an instance in point. Professional scientists who can see through the game are not good at exposing such rackets.They are not good at writing India does not have strong professional associations which can challenge misuse of technology in medicine. Tracker was providing refreshing insights in to the way campaigns against unethical practices in medicine can be conducted.
Let us hope that Tracker in a new format will appear as early as possible
.
Thanks, Seth and Michael. I really appreciate both your points here about improving the craft and, if not your enthusiasm for where we are at the moment, your willingness to be open-minded. And most of all, I appreciate, Seth, your willingness to work with us. We have some good ideas that we’re putting into place (I know, not enough information yet but…) but we’re going to be looking for more, asking for input and suggestions and even blue sky possibilities. You’ve got such a deep understanding of what’s important in journalism and I really look forward to discussing this with you further.
Ok. This is a decent start. It’s something and its more forthright. You ask for faith and the only problem is had this been the original announcement, you’d probably get more faith. You dug a big hole and are not out of it yet, but the digging has stopped. That’s good. I would love to say all is forgiven, but that’s still a bit of a leap. Especially with no really good sign of whats coming in the future.
If you think of yesterday’s announcement as two bad things _ 1 the loss of tracker and 2 the obfuscation _ this eases no. 2 but doesnt fix no 1.
Still, let’s work together to fix this self-inflicted wound. LIke everything, tracker could have been better. I for one am willing to work with you _ and with the old trackers wherever they land if they land somewhere _ to better science writing everywhere. No matter what personalities are involved, let’s improve not degrade our craft.
Deborah, as you say yourself, journalists aren’t supposed to accept things on faith–and that certainly includes journalists who are covering journalistic institutions. Indeed, there are no exceptions to this basic rule of journalism. So I think your somewhat cryptic comments about personalities, budget, etc. are going to leave many unsatisfied. But while we don’t take things on faith, we do have hopes–and we can hope that something good is going to come out of this.
Well, I’d like to first say – thanks, Dan! I really appreciate the note of support.
Second, the site won’t be entirely dark. Paul Raeburn will be writing for us through the end of this year on a regular basis. And we hope by early next year to have a v.2 in place. At least that’s the current plan.
And third, I appreciate your point, Michael. I’m stuck with cryptic on the details, unfortunately, in terms of publication. If you want to have more detailed conversation, though, I’m happy to talk on the phone.
Finally I appreciate the hopes and good wishes. I think the Tracker is smart now but I also think we can make it smarter. And that is the goal. Happy also to take suggestions and advice on that front.
I’m disappointed that it sounds like the site will be quiet from January 1 until at least July, and possibly longer. It sounds like there will be no interim version to tide us over until the Tracker’s replacement is active. Is that the current plan?
I’d just like to voice some support for Deb Blum here. It’s striking how much attachment a lot of folks feel for the tracker, but I don’t see anything wrong with a renewed version of the site. I’m looking forward to seeing how they move ahead.
Dan gives voice to something I was thinking. I got the impression from Deb’s first post that the Tracker would be reconfigured, not eliminated. Of course, I’m still hoping that it’s mission remains intact.
So far, to this writer of (non-science) non-fiction, this seems to be a botched attempt to manage a story via press release. Tracker has repeatedly criticized writers for being taken in by this tactic. As a survivor of a few publication ‘suspension’ horror stories, I suggest a commitment to continue publication of the current format until the “NEW! IMPROVED!” version can be rolled out. Along with a non-press release story, written from a non-management perspective (say from Charlie Petit or an outside entity), that addresses the issues raised so far, posted on the Tracker so that readers such as myself might see an example of your institution ‘walking the talk.’
Regardless of the outcome of this lurch toward Tracker’s nebulous future, I’d like to thank all the writers of Tracker posts (including you, Deborah Blum) for your efforts to quality-check science journalism. Until this month, it has been a pure pleasure to read. Good luck to all of you…