Comments on: Science Online 2010: Rebooting Science Journalism in the Age of the Web

By: ideonexus

ideonexus — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:38:32 +0000

That’s an important point Jim. I don’t want to give voice to people speaking outside of their field, and the Climate Skeptics are a great example of this. When Senator Inhofe released his list of “scientists” skeptical of climate change, I was quick to point out how many economists, biologists, physicists, and other scientists not in the field of Climatology or even Meteorology on the list.

To answer your question about my criteria: it’s evolving all the time. I make mistakes regularly, but I post corrections when I or one of my readers catch them. I like to quote Ernie Lederer on this, in that, “I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was yesterday.” : )

By: Making it real: People and Books and Web and Science at ScienceOnline2010 « Science in the Triangle

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:12:10 +0000

[...] David Dobbs, DeLene Beeland before and after and some more after, Andria Krewson, Sabine Vollmer, Ryan Somma, Janet Stemwedel and Eric [...]

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:42:55 +0000

“As for the fact-checking part of the issue, regular readers of the press-release sites know that, if other scientists object to another researcher’s claims, they will release their own press release debunking it. Whenever I link to a story on this blog in my daily links, I always make sure to run objections and counter-findings of other researchers.”

What criteria do you use to determine whether these are really “other researchers” worth taking seriously on the topic at hand? I have in mind areas such as debates over climate science research, where there are alternative journals published in by people who are at best on the fringes of climate research, but many of the participants, while having legitimate science credentials, are commenting outside of their field of expertise. If you were simply to take reports at face value, then we’re almost back to the “fake objectivity” of journalism showing “both sides” of a controversy, where there may not be controversy within a field, even though there is controversy among the general population.

By: ideonexus

ideonexus — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:31:23 +0000

Good point. I don’t mean to be dismissive of background and context. They do make the science much more meaningful and comprehensive, and I do consider stories with background superior to press-releases. Those are the former are the stories I will continue to reference years down the road, while the press-releases often get lost in the noise.

By: Pascal

Pascal — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:49:11 +0000

You were saying: My own perspective on this debate, as someone who links to these sites regularly, is that I don’t see much change between the press releases and the MSM article publications, except that the MSM provides much more background and context.

But are background and context not fundamental? Essential? More important than the “news”? Don’t forget that in science news, generally, 99% of readers does not know about the background and context. You give the impression that you dismissed “background and context” far too easily, as if it were secondary.