Science and journalism
Given that the blogosphere has formed largely in response to the inadequacy of the media, it was only a matter of time before scientists started grumbling about science journalism. Chris Mooney seems a bit miffed, particularly at a comment on Tara’s blog that suggests journalists are entirely unecessary – and that scientists just need good editors. This could easily be read and dismissed as a fight about who gets the byline but there is of course much more to it. I have put off weighing in on these and related framing issues because there is way too much I want to say and, since I am not a journalist by training, it still takes too long to write briefly - but here goes some of it…
Science journalists aren’t all useless but it does seem awkward and pretentious to have journalists – even when they have scientific background - calling the shots about who is “reasonable” and where the “middle ground” is in technical scientific debates. The entire scientific enterprise is set up to examine reasonableness of scientific claims via peer review of individual papers and more broadly, via assessments that evaluate science relevant to policy decisions. I speak from experience, not as a journalist but as someone who once upon a time served as staff for committees at the National Academy of Sciences, and even identified participants for some of those committees, at a time when I had only a BA in environmental studies. It was a humbling experience in that I was well aware of this paradox so I spent a lot of time doing homework and on the phone to scientists in search of overlapping recommendations and finding out what perspective different experts might contribute to a particular study. Then I disappeared to graduate school – and, being hopelessly interdisciplinary, thought more about what happens when scientists from one particular discipline decide what is relevant. That is another can of worms but it is also where the need for broader participation comes in, and why scientists should be challenged from outside their profession. So the public should be more engaged in the assessment process and can and should raise questions about relevance of the science to a particular problem and context, inconsistencies with other sources of knowledge, as well as contribute contextual knowledge and to problem framing. This is where journalists can play an important role.
But science at its best is also about constructing new frames of reference when old ones are inadequate. (One major fallacy is to treat “science” as a monolithic entity. At its worst, science is guilty of the same kind of sin – of assuming it can provide a universally applicable silver bullet.) Much of the tension with journalism comes not from misquoting scientists but from from trying to fit even accurate quotes, and new ways of thinking, into old and inadequate frames. What if, instead, journalists saw their role as finding ways to connect new to existing frames, or to compare and contrast them. Journalists aren’t all alike either and some of them do at least strive to do that. (in other words, this is not a comment on Chris, who has learned a few things along the way). Challenging existing world views is hard work and is not highly valued but is badly needed and will take all of the skills we can collectively muster. More to come on different frames within science….
