Honorable Forum:
The original questions were:
1) Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the
general
public?
2) What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information
to
the general public?
3) Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the
scientific method?
The corollary questions (with respect to SCIENCE journalism--not quite the
same as news reporting) might be:
1a) Should scientists write all their papers obfuscatorily or take the leap
into "popularization" and damn the howling peers?
2a) As soon as they come up with something sensational, sensationalize
it--or find a journalist who will?*
3a) Should scientists should learn how to rite rite? Or should they depend
on "journalists" to interpret their work and get it right? If the latter,
should the journalist have any responsibility for quoting accurately and
properly, in context--or not? If the journalist writes misleadingly about
the work, either intentionally or because of ignorance or incompetence, what
recourse do scientists have beyond making a federal case out of it, perhaps
at great pain and expense?
*The Fourth Estate should, however, have the final say on the content of
their pieces, but should not depend upon a pack of interns to vet the
accuracy of quotes and interpretations that they could, more easily and
cheaply get from the horse's mouth. INVESTIGATIVE journalists, should get
their information in any clandestine way they can, and report their findings
accordingly. There are plenty of big kings-of-the-mountain out their that
don't want their questionable work or remarks exposed that journalists don't
seem to want to touch. Go get THEM if you want a trophy.
The mystery "Laura" has asked rhetorical questions, of course. But they were
good ones. Most importantly, she gets at the big, big elephant in the room:
If "scientists" are going to bemoan the general ignorance of the rest of us,
it is incumbent upon them to do something about it, not merely shower us
with petals of condescension from their Ivory Towers. Noblesse oblige!
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <d...@fuzzo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this
by numbers.
1) The original suggestion was to allow "experts" to review ENTIRE
stories.
2) Most journalists -- not just me -- find that suggestion anathema,
unethical, and legally unwise.
3) Most reputable journalists -- including myself -- have no problem with
fact-checking quotes or potentially difficult passages.
4) Item (3) is not the same as allowing the source to read the whole
story.
Point of fact: magazines have fact-checking departments. They will
contact the source and ask if that is what the source said. (They won't
share the entire story with the source, however.) Newspapers generally
don't have the time, nor the support staff, to do the same.
As for me, I usually have what a scientist says in an e-mail or a
recording -- so there's no problem knowing what the source said.
Sometimes I've even suggested to sources edited versions of quotes so that
they can be on record as saying what the actually meant, not what they
originally said.
The problem for journalists isn't in checking facts, it is in giving a
source access to the full story prior to publication. Journalism is far
different from science, where peer review is routine. If we allow source
"review" in journalism, we give up an essential independence that taints
the quality of the work we do as journalists. Our job is to report
matters as we see them, not as you see them.
Dave
On 4/11/2011 3:20 PM, David L. McNeely wrote:
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 on!
ly!
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 | 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.
