Beat Reporting: SCIENCE

By Casey Rentz

Science in mass media• 95 newspapers that published special science sections in the 1989,

but droped sharply thereafter--only about 35 still do so today.

• Of the 44 sections in the 1992 survey, only 24 remain, with many of those dropping “science” or “discovery” titles in favor of “health” and “fitness.” For example, the Portland Oregonian’s section formerly known as “Science” is now called “Accent on Health & Fitness.” Newsday’s “Discovery” science section is now called “Health & Discovery.”

• If editor enthusiasm is any measure, a reversal of this trend seems unlikely. Only 10% of editors responding to the PEJ survey said they considered science and technology reporting “very essential” to the quality of their news product.

• In making these cuts, editors also don’t necessarily eliminate subject matter altogether. Instead, they tend to dilute it.

(PEJ 2008)

(Christine Russel for the Shorensen Center)

Why we need it• About half of Americans know that the earth orbits around the sun (and not

vice versa); • about half know that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time; • less than one-third know that DNA is a basic genetic building block of life

(some have guessed it to be the Drug and Narcotics Agency)

• There is a greater need than ever before for journalists who are skilled in reporting both the underlying complexity of the science as well as the legal, ethical and political ramifications of its uses. Unfortunately, jobs for fulltime science writers at major print and electronic outlets are declining, while the number of important science and science policy developments to cover is increasing. The news hole is shrinking, and the stories that do appear may be confusing, misleading or downright wrong. Many important topics are left unreported in favor of soft “news you can use” consumer health and medical features on everything from fad diets to the latest exercise machines. The Internet offers an unlimited source of information, but, unsorted and unevaluated, it can be bewildering and inaccurate for the unsophisticated user.

Chris Russel 2006

• Newsday – Earle Lane is out, Bryn Nelson is out. I don’t think they have anybody. U.S. News – Charlie Petit’s out. Time magazine – Mike Lemonick is out. I mean, you can go around to all the major publications and see that experienced science writers are no longer…Washington Post – Kathy Sawyer’s out. At AP, Matt Crenson is gone.

Curtis Brainard for CJR

• Newsday – Earle Lane is out, Bryn Nelson is out. I don’t think they have anybody. U.S. News – Charlie Petit’s out. Time magazine – Mike Lemonick is out. I mean, you can go around to all the major publications and see that experienced science writers are no longer…Washington Post – Kathy Sawyer’s out. At AP, Matt Crenson is gone.

• According to The Washington Post, “NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel [last week], axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s ‘Green Week,’ as well as several on-camera meteorologists.”

• Newsday – Earle Lane is out, Bryn Nelson is out. I don’t think they have anybody.

• U.S. News – Charlie Petit’s out. • Time magazine – Mike Lemonick is out• Washington Post – Kathy Sawyer’s out. • At AP, Matt Crenson is gone.• According to The Washington Post, “NBC Universal made the

first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel [last week], axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s ‘Green Week,’ as well as several on-camera meteorologists.”

• “We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” said CNN spokesperson Barbara Levin.

In Protest

• “Four of the world’s largest science and environmental journalism groups issued their first-ever joint statement today in a letter sent to CNN protesting the network’s decision to cut its entire science team this month.”

• The presidents of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists signed the letter, which was addressed to CNN’s Jim Walton and Jon Klein

Curtis Brainard for CJR

World Conference of Science Journalists Feb. 2009

• Science Journalism in Crisis?

• CNN axes its entire science, technology and environment news staff. In the UK, science supplements in national newspapers are now a thing of the past. Science journalists find themselves moved to the environment beat in a shift of emphasis in news reporting. Are science journalists a dying breed?

Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Feb. 2009

• The Future of Science and Environmental Journalism• “one of the more interesting aspects of yesterday’s

conversation was the fact that there was little discussion of the quality of online versus traditional news. The far bigger concern—to use a term that was once often applied weekly to newspaper science sections, mind you—is the “ghettoization” of specialized news among those who already care.”

Curtis Brainard for CJR

So, what’s going on? People are losing jobs and the public is dumb,

but what’s the real story?• No money-beats are a luxury

• Shift from science to health

• Environmentalism hot

• Journals setting the agenda

• Still some good coverage, but its sporadic

• beat reporters + scientists + public + new media= revolution in how science exists in public

Let’s step back….what is the science beat?

• Environment

• Health/Medical

• Technology

• Physical Sciences

• Cosmology

Michael Parks• Science used to be on page 1 all the time, now it is never on page 1. • “One of the things i found through marketing surveys, through wandering around

the community asking questions was that the interest that our readers and Angelenos broadly had in science and technology and applied science (engineering) it was one of those subjects that they were most interested in.”

• Knowing that, I said, we ought to cover it• It was pretty easy to get readers interested in page 1 science because we had a great

team: K.C. Cole, 1 biology, 3 medical writers, they had their own editor and were all terrific story tellers as well as a sense for what was news.

• The appetite for science and tech was such that i wanted to add 2 reporters: technology reporter, engineering reporter (David Lauder suggested the engineering beat.)

• Question: Could we have a free-standing science section? apart from the already established health section. Getting advertising for the section was the problem, not reader interest.

• The new editor John Carroll and the new publisher John Puerner didn't see any value in the redesign and scraped the idea for the science section. They decided they wanted to compete directly with east coast papers and and emphasize politics, policy, investigations—”there was a deemphasis on science and religion and most beats--they saw it as peripheral and i think that was a result of not understanding los angeles and not understanding the west. “

Michael Parks

• “If somebody said take over the la times and start tomorrow, one of the things i would do is immediately rebuild (the specialized sections.)”

• NYT--has science section that they also merged their health news into and have lots of technology. (some people still believe its important in mass media)

• NPR is hiring science journalists, has increased its podcasts on science (some mass media models are surviving)

The history of the science beat

• The economic boom of the 1920s—science was a staple in American newspapers.

• The Science Service—first science news wire service 1921

• 1930s--Science politicized by war

• Early 1930s--NASW formed

• 1950--War had produced new technologies, more science to write about than ever before

• following World War II, as the federal government began to invest heavily in scientific and medical research, the pace of new developments required science reporters to be prepared to follow everything from physics to polio vaccine development.

• to some extent the proliferation of coverage reflected hightened interest as a result of the competitive relationship we had with the soviet union.

• 50s--science articles were awarded top placement in newspapers.’ The physical sciences gave way to the biomedical sciences in British media in the 1970s.

• 60s—rise of celebrity science journalists: John Maddox of the Manchester Guardian, Walter Sullivan of the NYT further alienated scientists from direct contact with the public.

• The early reporting was often characterized by a “gee-whiz” fascination with the new developments in science, medicine, and technology.

• But in the 1970s--the coverage turned more skeptical as concerns about environmental contamination led to calls for more government regulation, and rapid developments in biology research raised new ethical concerns.

• 80s--new diseases, such as AIDS, while the pace of technological developments such as the computer quickened—reporters were covering medical and tech issues more.

• 90s—reporters feel the pressure as the science beat is the first to go

Chris russell

Jane Gregory

NASW membership

• Early 1930s founded

• 1945: 63 members

• 1950: 120 members

• 1960: 413 members

• 2006: 2600 members

Society of Environmental Journalists

• Founded 1990

• 1400 members today

Association of Health Care Journalists

• Founded in 1990

• 950 members

Tom Siegfried, editor of ScienceNews

• “The bottom line is, there is no doubt, if you’re familiar with the research and the readership surveys, the interest in science, medicine and the environment is very high, and there are lots of different kinds of surveys. Newspaper readership surveys, social research surveys that gauge public interest in various topics.”

• Science sections have failed at generating advertising.

• Journals setting agenda.

KC Cole

• Currently a wide gulf between the reader—who is vastly interested in science—and the gatekeeper

• “Presented with science, [editors] can no longer feel smart. Science is about puzzles, they think science is about answers.”

• Noticed less and less science journalists at meetings—veteran science journalist, science editor of the San Fran Chronicle David Perleman, agrees.

• 60s and 70s—meeting driven journalism• 90s—publication driven journalism

Today

• Pop science books sell

• Specialized magazines are holding steady

• Science coverage in mass media is sporadic

• Entertainment and documentary booming

• Bloggers thrive in all subjects

The Players

• The mass audience

• The science interested audience

• The mass media

• The specialized media

• The scientific institution

• The press office

• The scientist

• The journalist

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word• The specialized media—more in depth, but preach to

the choir, some focused on entertainment

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word• The specialized media—more in depth, but preach to

the choir, some focused on entertainment• The scientific institution—press releases more power

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word• The specialized media—more in depth, but preach to

the choir, some focused on entertainment• The scientific institution—press releases more power• The press office—communicating more directly to the

public

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word• The specialized media—more in depth, but preach to

the choir, some focused on entertainment• The scientific institution—press releases more power• The press office—communicating more directly to the

public• The scientist—still complains of inacuracy, has

become active in media

The Players

• The mass audience—has become active• The science interested audience—has become active• The mass media—takes journals/institutions word• The specialized media—more in depth, but preach to

the choir, some focused on entertainment• The scientific institution—press releases more power• The press office—communicating more directly to the

public• The scientist—still complains of inacuracy, has

become active in media• The journalist—little time to play watchdog role, write

good article, and are going to specialized outlet

JPL press department, March 2009

• Roundtable with press department at JPL: come from varying backgrounds—newspapers, general reporters, specialized reporters, broadcast, medical writers, recent graduates

• have you seen changes in the way you interact with mass media over the last 5 years?– a resounding yes, and i think going back more

than 5 years that there started to be fewer beat reporters coming around

– have seen a lot more general reporters who know nothing about the beat

– haven't really seen that much of mass media using wire stories dominating

– interact with nat geo and discover more and more

New media at JPL • We used to deal directly with the news media, now its the news

media and the public, but we are dealing mostly with the people that we know are already interested.

• Moving away from news releases and towards composed pieces—they have the resources to do so and the demand.

• “Just put out all different kinds of information in all different kinds of ways and let the public sort it out, see what they are interested in.”

• “There is this conflicted atmosphere about new media because we come from old school atmosphere which was high production value, sleek look and what you’re finding now is they want jerky camera work they want cinema verite" and we had a team from disney channel--when they shot it clean, the general audience found it was not as real, so they now manufacture jerky camera work. (so, we know say--keep it simple, low production, though we have the tools to make it look good)”

• Have begun to start their own wiki for their projects because it's the first thing that comes up on the web

Lee Hotz, former prez NASW

• “I think journalism is an endeavor that’s entirely separate from the technology of publishing.”

• Our professional failings is that we have kind of adopted a sort of reflexive, tutorial, school-teacher relationship with our readers. And I think that’s a mistake, and I think it’s a mistake that other journalists who cover complicated subjects have come to realize, and it’s part of the reason for the astonishing renaissance of narrative journalism in America.

Michael Parks

• “I think we tend to overemphasize and overestimate the digital and forget that the basic lesson of the era of the niche is--i want my information when i want it, how i want it, and the way i want it. And what works for me, may work for you but may not.”

• Research blogging

Howard Swartz, Exec. Producer

• have an entire department called the standards and practice department 12 people whose only job is to go through every word and every frame and picture is accurate and making sure that every show had balance and context. integrity.

• do have to have a commercial sensibility to compete

• benefits of broad umbrella media group--society the parent company--can leverage the assets if need be. cross promoting, cross platform initiatives

Sean McKnight, Program Director

• Fact checking is a contractual obligation of the producers and their responsibility. Generally insist on annotated scripts with sources.

• Business model--cant point to a downfall. World's largest non-fiction media company. Built in brand recognition..

• Emerging channels in our conglomerate pull resources from disc communications and we are in growth mode.

Wired.com• “You have the ability to reveal the story in progress, this

sort of ‘process-is-content’ notion,” Hansen explained about blogging. “You reveal what you have, as it comes in, and then you invite the readers and the public to help you finish the story.” -editor Evan Hansen

• This method of reporting has improved blogging at Wired.com, particularly when Hansen and his colleagues have taken experimental risks that have become incredibly successful. Most prominent among these experiments is the Geekdad blog, which features posts from self-proclaimed “geek” dads and moms. The contributors submit one or two posts a week, typically about science or technology topics that appeal to parents and kids alike.

Patrick Thornton, beatblogging.org

Who of these people is doing journalism?

• National Geographic. Entertainment #1• Discovery Communications. Entertainment

#1• Press Offices of

Foundations/Institutions/Museums. Have a bias.

• Advocacy groups. Have an agenda.• Peer Review. Unreadable.• Scientists. Don’t know how to talk to the

public.

Beat Blogging…sustainable?• I don’t really see how blogging works as a substitute for

traditional science journalism, and I question talk of “marriage” between the two when so many traditional science journalists are losing the jobs—and also, sad to say, when many science bloggers seem to have an adversarial stance toward their science journalist peers (and perhaps vice-versa).

• But blogging isn’t a career. • Our economic models are individualistic and entrepreneurial.

One can scarcely doubt that there will always be people in the media willing—or crazy enough—to roll this way. We’re the types to to cry “Freedom!” at the top of our lungs while the media industry removes our entrails. But the question is, what happens to everybody else? The death of traditional science journalism is a death of pensions, healthcare, and childbearing leave. It is a harsh exposure of science journalism to the elements.

Chris Mooney, March 25, 2009

Medical blogging community• Individual bloggers • 54% have published a scientific paper• 41% have published a news article• 44% have published a book chapter• More frequently link to source material• Major motivation

– Sharing practical knowledge– Influencing people– Expressing oneself

New mass media?

• JPL alluded that some internet sites can act as new mass media

• Can this make up for the circulation of big brands?

New mass media

• youtube

• I tunes

PEJ Major Trends

• Power is shifting to the individual journalist and away, by degrees, from journalistic institutions.

What remains to be seen• “In principle, anyone with an Internet connection now has

access to more, and better, scientific coverage than ever before. In practice, however, this sort of information reaches only those who seek it out. An average citizen is unlikely to search the Web for the Higgs boson or the proteasome if he or she doesn’t hear about it first on, say, a cable news channel.” (Nature MARCH 2009)

• “They make up for people who are looking for it. i can find out more about what im interested in now than every before, but the serendipty is lost”--Guy Webster, JPL

• “Here's what were losing...in the era of the niche, we tend to only learn about things we wanna learn about, so we've lost serendipity. Now, we decide what we want to know or what we need to know and go look for it. There's been some concern about this as far as reinforcing the opinions we already have”--Michael Parks