Thoughts on science and context
I got a good question last week from a grad student here at Mizzou. I thought the question and my response were worth sharing. First, the question:
I had an interesting interview with a Chemistry professor this morning. … He thinks the Missourian, and media in general, don’t write enough stories about science. As a Chemistry professor, he thinks the general public should hear more about the work that he does and the importance of it. On the other hand, you can’t write a headline that says “Chemistry professor will cure cancer” since it’s not necessarily true. He’s certainly not a fan of media “hype.” Would producing a context-rich website include writing stories about topics we don’t usually cover, like the confusing world of chemistry, or would it simply be aimed at giving more context to the subjects we often cover? Is “context” topic-specific, or are you looking to broaden the wide world of information that readers have access to?
My reply:
I think journalists’ inability and unwillingness to cover science properly is a huge blind spot to the profession, caused by a couple of systemic incompatibilities between the science world and journalism as it’s practiced.
I would also say that not enough science coverage is a big problem, but woefully inaccurate science coverage might be an even bigger problem. Many journalists covering science aren’t thoroughly steeped in the sciences. Even at papers like the NY Times, which might do more science coverage than any other general-interest periodical in the country, the science reporters are usually dilettantes, not specialists. I don’t think my research would do much to help that problem, except to the extent that I’m advocating for the greater involvement of non-journalists (including scientists) in journalism.
And yes, I think focusing journalism more squarely on context would help overcome the problems, although the lack of context is only part of the issue. Journalism today is built around news events – that is, discrete, high-profile occurrences. Science is essentially built around the opposite of news events – the slow, steady, procedural accumulation and refinement of knowledge.
Even still, we miss opportunities to tie science information in when news events warrant it. For example, until recently, Sarah Palin’s stump speech contained a dig about how the government wastes money on such nonsense as researching the DNA of fruit flies. Scientists howled in fury – fruit flies are considered excellent research subjects because they reproduce so much and share a good proportion of their DNA with humans. It was a teachable moment that most reporters didn’t touch.
More salient to my research, I think, is the notion that focusing on the context behind the news enables journalism to tell larger, more complex stories. I think that will inevitably mean connecting those stories to science, in many cases. So much of science relates to the stuff of daily life – language, money, nutrition, health, technology, relationships, transportation, you-name-it. Cover crime deeply enough, and you’ll end up studying sociology, psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, and probably epidemiology. And my research is all about the continual deepening and expansion of the product of journalism.
Your thoughts?
Related posts:
- Thoughts on a historic year I’ve written a lot here about evolving journalism to enable...
- News as a hook for context I’m often asked, “Do people really want context? Say you...
- Martin Langeveld’s notes on the future of context Last week, I had a tremendous conversation with some of...
