Posts Tagged ‘science blogging’

Better baggage screening for science writing

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

Did anyone pay me to write this?* What’s my relationship with sources mentioned below? Is this post a presentation of opinion? Is it backed by reporting? Some combination of both?

Do you care?

I don’t have any data to suggest you do or don’t, let alone anyone else. But I care, for your sake, my own sake and the sake of democracy.

To make informed judgments about the world, I think readers need access to as much context surrounding a piece of content as possible — including disclosures from the writer (whether it’s a simple blog post or an award-winning feature).

As a critically thinking reader, imagine me as a TSA worker who likes his job way too much. I want to screen your baggage, wave electrified wands in uncomfortable places and possibly direct you into a compromising body scanner. I do this so I can trust that you won’t sneak a figurative bomb into through my brain and into my social networks.

The reality of disclosure is kind of a bummer. Only two out of five science news stories, for example, say anything about the funding of reported research. Science writers disclose researchers’ financial ties to the work even less frequently, about 11 percent of the time. These are often the easiest facts of a story to write, yet omitting them may be erroding public trust in science and journalism**. And we haven’t even touched the writer’s baggage yet.

(more…)

The obscure journal dilemma

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

giant shelf of booksPositivity.

Childhood.

small.

What do these have in common? One, they’re all scientific journals. Two, chances are you’ve never heard of them. (No offense, journals.)

These titles don’t have quite the ring of Science, Nature or PNAS — three of the most-cited journals in modern times — and they rarely carry the studies that send newsfolk into a frenzy, e.g. the recent one about evidence of microbes incorporating arsenic into the backbones of their DNA.

But obscure journals have cool science tucked between their covers. Even the brutal ranks of impact factor, one of the slave drivers of publish-or-perish culture in science, can’t take that away from them.

As a science writer, this fills me with sorrow. I know they hold fascinating and newsworthy gems, the kind of studies people would want to read about. But the noise-to-signal ratio is multiplied by thousands upon thousands of titles. And I’m but one nerdy person to sift through them.

(more…)

The ten commandments of science journalism

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Journalists take a lot of flak these days.

For every article bravely shipped to an editor, journos risk a volley from Joe Audience, Jane Stakeholder and even fellow colleagues. Some criticism is well-deserved and well-put. The rest of it is any combination of uninformed, nonconstructive and downright mean.

I lack the institutional knowledge of my, er, “finely aged” colleagues (by no fault of my baby-faced self), but it seems to me that the anonymity, immediacy and searchability of the ‘net has lubricated the delivery of such criticism. In a not-so-great way.

Thus, it’s with great relief that I recently see not one but two very well-crafted criticisms of journalism. The first is Alexis Madrigal’s artful response to a recent Wired magazine piece, the second a review of “The Seven Deadly Sins Of Science Journalism” by Jonathan Parkinson at Science 2.0.

For this post I’m sticking to the latter piece, since it echoes some of the elements of Madrigal’s critique (e.g. sensationalism, oversimplification, getting it wrong, etc.). Also, some would argue the Wired.com blowup isn’t really about science journalism — and this is a sciencey blog, for crissakes!

If you’re too pressed for time, here’s Parkinson’s cardinal list:

  1. Sensationalized reporting
  2. Over-reliance on press releases
  3. Detail-free reporting
  4. Oversimplifying/getting it wrong
  5. Appeal to authority and cheerleading
  6. Jargon
  7. Overworked cliches

I think it’s an extremely valid set of criticisms. But it’s a little light on constructive guidelines for my tastes.

Hence, therefore, I offer you ten commandments of science journalism! (more…)

Plagiarism as a spectrum

Monday, July 26th, 2010

cheating on a testLast week, fresh in the wake of the digital hurricane that was PepsiGate, science writer Brian Switek saw a funny thing: what appeared to be part of his story on a website he had never written for.

On July 16, Smithsonian.com ran a piece Switek wrote about dinosaurs that snacked on unfortunate burrowing mammals (with cool skeleton-in-the-stomach fossils to boot). As is common in the competitive science news industry, some other outlet — Tom Feilden’s blog at the BBC in this case — eventually posted a similar piece.

But according to Switek and many others, the wording in the BBC’s post looked a bit too similar.

Switek pointed out this curiosity in the article’s comments section, eventually announcing “slimy” behavior on Twitter. Allegations of  plagiarism ensued, and Charlie Petit of Knight Science Journalism Tracker played referee. (more…)

ScienceBlogs + PepsiCo: Are we overreacting?

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

Update 1 (7/8/2010): I’ve had some time to “chew on the gray area,”and Martin Robbins’ most excellent post on “Pepsigate” certainly helped (via David Dobbs). In short, I agree with Robbins’ argument and potential solutions. However, I’m still left wondering the following: Why wasn’t such a colossal stink about corporate-sponsored blogs previously raised by the community? Again, I admittedly lack the inside perspective because I’m not a ScienceBlogs member. Some of these sponsored blogs appear to be editorially independent, but full transparency is publicly elusive.

Update 2 (7/8/2010): ScienceBlogs has shuttered Food Frontiers and officially opened this issue up for debate, which pads the fair ounce of credit I think they deserve. Is this, however, a case of “a day late, a dollar short”? Yes, and rightfully so for those who left — especially the journalist-bloggers (i.e. David Dobbs, Maryn McKenna, Rebecca Skloot, etc.). But I’m an optimist. Perhaps management at Seed can truly learn from this experience, address the major problems that permitted the business operation to tarnish the editorial operation, and salvage their hemorrhaging community.


If you’ve been living under a science blogging rock, head over to Carl Zimmer’s summary of the ScienceBlogs and PepsiCo kerfuffle.

Didn’t get all that? Here’s a capsule review of the past 24+ hours:

  1. The 8,000,000-pound corporate gorilla PepsiCo struck a deal with Seed Media Group to join ScienceBlogs
  2. “Food Frontiers,” as the new blog is called, started with an introductory post by Evan Lerner
  3. The science blogosphere threw a conniption, with the majority* saying: “WTF is going on here?”
  4. In protest, some ScienceBloggers decided to vacate the premises (some temporarily, some permanently)
  5. ScienceBlogs finally added disclaimers about the nature of the PepsiCo relationship, i.e. that it’s “advertorial”
  6. News outlets (e.g. The Guardian) ran pieces about the fiasco
  7. When it’s a little too late, Adam Bly — founder and CEO of Seed — sent this letter to the ScienceBloggers
  8. (welcome to the present)

Pepsi Cola sign by Whiskeygonebad/FlickrIn short, ScienceBlogs — for various reasons — pissed off a lot of people.

But are we all overreacting over a communications oversight here? Or is this a legitimate, fist-slamming-on-the-desk moment to stick up to The Man?

Or perhaps a bit of both? (more…)