This is such a fascinating discussion - my twin passions, science and journalism!
Dave M, I think that the key here is there are different kinds of writers. There are strict journalists or reporters who are trained to "just report" - and that is where the whole "he said, she said" journalism school of writing comes from too. The reporter as unbiased neutral reporter, conveying the facts and details. The spectrum of science writing also includes more narrative/creative nonfiction and in those cases the writer is commentator. Think Rick Bass, Bill McKibben, on and on. They are not just neutrally reporting but are writer-with-personality-and-opinion. Those are two ends of a spectrum. Many writers are leaning towards narrative nonfiction - feature length stories that include more story-telling - even within traditional reporting outlets like the NY Times. Magazine features are often narrative stories that include some of the writer's personality and perspective. So the writer who went in and learned about that scientist's work and called it a potion was making his/her own judgment - weaving his own story about that scientists work - based on what they were learning. Now the question is also did the writer say that in their OWN WORDS or did they quote others who thought that? It also seems like a situation where, if the story kind of SOUNDED like a tale of a scientist making a "potion" the editor could have come in and labeled it that to sell the story. Hopefully that science writer had enough knowledge and intellect that they could make that judgment call about the validity of the science. But if, as you suggest, it is way off base - well that is frustrating but ultimately that's the risk any of us play in this world. During the election didn't Sarah Palin criticize fruit fly research as unnecessary and unimportant? She was way off base in her understanding of the importance of that work, which I believe was being done for some medical issue, but the point is - if the public is funding it, scientists face the scrutiny of the entire society who funds that research, like it or not. Just my 0.03 Wendee Wendee Holtcamp ~ Writer * Photographer * Bohemian * Scientist Web: [www.wendeeholtcamp.com] Blog: [bohemianadventures.blogspot.com] Twitter: @bohemianone Next Online Magazine Writing Classes start April 23 & Jun 4, 2011 - Ask me! David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a "source" can work effectively together to make sure that a "story" is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the "source's" greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The "source" does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your "ownersip" of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the "truth." But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, specifically stating that they were preliminary and only! of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of a person obsessed with selling a "potion," stating that he claimed to have "proven" something he had labeled as "an odd finding, in need of additional scrutiny." Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many interviews he has given since. Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the "source" is able to say, "That is not what I said, and my published reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it." mcneely ---- "David M. Lawrence" <d...@fuzzo.com> wrote: > I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my > journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news > business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 > years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; > having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; > having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, > and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association > of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the > Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I > think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. > > The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories > with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- > most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check > -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a > difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that > as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source > one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it > to suit their interests. > > Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't > you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you > should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? > > Dave > > On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: > > Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal > > to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests > > that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. > > > > This has nothing to do with "casting aside independence for accuracy," and > > you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. > > > > If you are going to write sentences that go like this: "According to Dr. > > X, such and such is true" there is no way for you to fact check that > > except to ask X, "I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you > > right?" That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, > > it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't > > cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't > > make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you > > would do for fact checking on any other assertion. > > > > Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the > > reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to > > cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for > > approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly > > enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that > > we don't buy what you are trying to sell. > > > > Hal Caswell > > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > >> Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business > >> spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but > >> scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been > >> committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for > >> influential scientists. > >> > >> You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to > >> think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, > >> you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long > >> to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may > >> have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major > >> ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the > >> agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. > >> > >> The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their > >> independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. > >> > >> You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit > >> from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why > >> don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical > >> journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show > >> copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. > >> > >> Dave > >> > >> On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their > >>>> stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the > >>>> issue, reducing > >>>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering > >>>> in silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an > >>>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is > >>>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the > >>>> reporter > >>>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot > >>>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the > >>>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree > >>>> with Dave's point, but it's not my point. > >>> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad > >>> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that > >>> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the > >>> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a > >>> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying > >>> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different > >>> actions in different circumstances. > >>> > >>> Jane Shevtsov > >>> > >>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com> > >>>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > >>>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces > >>>>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons > >>>>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the > >>>>> same > >>>>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I > >>>>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their > >>>>> approval > >>>>> of a story I wrote involving them first. > >>>>> > >>>>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very > >>>>> hard > >>>>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by > >>>>> running > >>>>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy > >>>>> of a > >>>>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- > >>>>> it > >>>>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our > >>>>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an > >>>>> independent > >>>>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for > >>>>> approval? We cannot. > >>>>> > >>>>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such > >>>>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my > >>>>> statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist > >>>>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed > >>>>> from > >>>>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to > >>>>> support > >>>>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The > >>>>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or > >>>>> less > >>>>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the > >>>>> material > >>>>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to > >>>>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" targets > >>>>> that > >>>>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that > >>>>> need to > >>>>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our > >>>>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to > >>>>> suit > >>>>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science > >>>>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've > >>>>> asked > >>>>> to have their name taken off of the byline). > >>>>> > >>>>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries" > >>>>> where > >>>>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask > >>>>> a > >>>>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself > >>>>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are > >>>>> not > >>>>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could > >>>>> offer > >>>>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such > >>>>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know > >>>>> what > >>>>> to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dave > >>>>> > >>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > >>>>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can > >>>>>> get > >>>>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were > >>>>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in > >>>>>> presuming > >>>>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be > >>>>>> averted > >>>>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the > >>>>>> piece > >>>>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ... > >>>>> -- > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > >>>>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > >>>>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > >>>>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > >>>>> > >>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > >>>>> > >>>>> "No trespassing > >>>>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- > >>>>> No virus found in this message. > >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >>>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > >>>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. > >>>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > >> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > >> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > >> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > >> > >> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > >> > >> "No trespassing > >> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Hal Caswell > > Senior Scientist > > Biology Department > > Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution > > Woods Hole MA 02543 > > 508-289-2751 > > hcasw...@whoi.edu > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -- David McNeely
