{"id":7824,"date":"2011-12-09T03:55:09","date_gmt":"2011-12-09T08:55:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/collideascape\/?p=7824"},"modified":"2011-12-09T03:55:09","modified_gmt":"2011-12-09T08:55:09","slug":"a-critic-of-science-journalism-dons-a-masquerade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/?p=7824","title":{"rendered":"A Critic of Science Journalism Dons a Masquerade"},"content":{"rendered":"

Buy Prednisone Online Without Prescription There are two recent critiques of science journalism that paint very different pictures of the profession. One of them, an editorial<\/a>\u00a0in Nature this week, is more broadly aimed at the news media in general, and decries “scientific ignorance of the press,” agenda-driven stories, and “journalism that favors attitude over accuracy.” \u00a0The criticism is directed at British newspaper reporters and editors:<\/p>\n

Lorazepam Buy Online With stories ranging from ludicrous (wind turbine attacked by aliens) to downright irresponsible (promoting the link between childhood vaccinations and autism), the fourth estate in the United Kingdom has hardly covered itself in glory when it comes to science and scientific issues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, according<\/a> to Sarah Mukherjee, a former BBC environmental correspondent, the struggle for UK journos on the enviro beat is to avoid being superficial and part of a herd. (Come to think of it, that’s a pretty universal struggle for everyone in the press.) But Nature, taking particular issue with the lack of rigor in science reporting, says<\/p>\n

https://www.secpeinvestments.com/property-management/ there is a sense that the situation is more acute in tabloid-driven Britain, particularly given the distasteful news-gathering techniques that are now under the microscope like never before.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Order Ativan Online I’m not familiar enough with science coverage in the UK media to have an opinion on Nature’s assessment. I’d be curious to hear what British science reporters or bloggers think.<\/p>\n

Buy Clonazepam Without Prescription Interestingly, David Whitehouse<\/a>, another former BBC correspondent (1988-1998), has a different sort of beef<\/a> with his colleagues. It boils down to this: science journalists were better at their jobs last century (like when he was at the BBC, I’m guessing):<\/p>\n

Buy Ultram Online 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Buy Ultram Online Well, as you might expect, these are “fighting words” to the average, self-respecting science journalist, which is how veteran science writer Paul Raeburn put it in his\u00a0rebuttal<\/a>\u00a0at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:<\/p>\n

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.”\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

http://masterfacilitator.com/vizhub/ The Dude would be proud. But Whitehouse also made it easy for Raeburn, who writes:<\/p>\n

Ambien Buy Online He [Whitehouse] begins his argument with the contention that “science, and communicating science, is too important to be left to the scientists.”\u009d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

https://forgive123.com/events/ Raeburn also observes that Whitehouse<\/p>\n

makes the odd argument that the widespread availability of science news has led news outlets to become “bland clones”\u009d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Whitehouse, though, is on stronger footing when he\u00a0accuses<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Valium Online Without Prescription many journalists being supporters of, and not reporters of, science. There is a big difference.\u00a0Many have become advocates for science that are too close to the scientists they report on. Anyone who has downed an orange juice at a scientists and journalists bash will not have to look far to see them compete to see who can be the most sycophantic. At one such gathering I remarked, tactlessly, that I was surprised, and disappointed, that half of the scientists there didn’t hate half of the journalists! Scientists even run prizes for science journalists! Jonathan Leake, science and environment editor at the Sunday Times said recently, “Science in the daily media is too often reported in the same deferential way as political journalists used to report politics in the 1950s.” Because of this back slapping closeness, many journalists lack detachment and by implication judgment about the stories they cover.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

https://ramedicare.com/modified-power-yoga-routine/ Raeburn acknowledged these and other points:<\/p>\n

https://growthjourneytherapy.com/methods/ 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Raeburn then notes that the “only example” Whitehouse provides “to make his case is that of climate-change coverage.” Yes, that kinda jumped out at me, too. So I googled a bit to see what he might have written about the subject and this\u00a0column<\/a>\u00a0in the New Statesman popped up from 2007. In it he explains why “global warming has stopped.” (To see how he arrived at this, you’ll have to go and read it for yourself.) Similarly, in 2010, Whitehouse wrote a piece for the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation and reproduced at WUWT, titled<\/a>,\u00a0“The climate coincidence: Why is the temperature unchanging?”<\/p>\n

http://masterfacilitator.com/trainingoverview/ It turns out that Whitehouse does a lot of writing<\/a> for the UK think tank that is a known clearinghouse for climate skeptic-oriented commentary and research. He is their science editor.<\/p>\n

https://rgprincipal.com/noticias-peru/ Strangely, this affiliation wasn’t mentioned in his bio<\/a> for the Huffington Post piece.<\/p>\n

Buy Tramadol 100 Mg Online Let me be clear: Whitehouse being the science editor for the Global Warming Foundation doesn’t (and shouldn’t) disqualify him from penning an opinion piece for anyone, including the Huffington Post. But it’s a bit peculiar that in a column critical of science journalists and climate reporting–that his connection to a climate skeptic think tank was not disclosed to Huffington Post readers.<\/p>\n

Order Ativan Online One last thing. Whitehouse is absolutely on the mark with some of his points in the column<\/a>, including this one:<\/p>\n

Order Valium Without Prescription Journalism is about not taking sides, or about being a cheerleader.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are two recent critiques of science journalism that paint very different pictures of the profession. One of them, an editorial\u00a0in Nature this week, is more broadly aimed at the news media in general, and decries “scientific ignorance of the press,” agenda-driven stories, and “journalism that favors attitude over accuracy.” \u00a0The criticism is directed at… Continue Reading…<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2553,2561,2790],"tags":[835,1585],"class_list":["post-7824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-climate-change","category-climate-science","category-journalism","tag-climate-change","tag-science-journalism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}