I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding.
So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely ---- "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm a scientist, which is why I originally joined the ESA and this list > many years ago, but I'm also a journalist, and I can damn well do > without the journalist-bashing here. I know a hell of a lot of > colleagues in organizations like the National Association of Science > Writers and Society of Environmental Journalists who work very hard to > get the story RIGHT. > > First, let me address some delusions among you. Publishing in a > scientific journal is not disseminating information to the PUBLIC. It > is merely sharing sermon tips among your fellow clergy. Most of the > general public will never see a scientific journal, most of those will > have trouble wading through all of paper (as most of you probably do), > and of those that do wade through all of a paper, they will have a very > hard time understanding the materials and methods (as most of you > probably do), and will have no clue about the context in the papers > referred to in literature reviews. You may have read those papers -- > but they will not have, nor will they. > > My comments about the general public here apply to journalists and > politicians, too. > > Most of you don't understand the culture of journalism and are horrified > that journalists don't take your word for "it." Too bad -- we're not > supposed to take anyone's word for "it." There's an old joke that if a > reporter's mom tells him that she loves him, he should confirm it with > two independent sources. In some areas, such as economic policy or > weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some high profile journalists > occasionally fail, but when it comes to science reporting, they are > pretty diligent. > > Few journalists these days are going to accept what you say as gospel > because you're a "scientist" -- nor should they. Journalists are going > to check what they say against another source -- and usually we try to > find someone who disagrees with you or who has been a critic of the type > of research you do. For journalists, it is called "balance." For you, > it might be called lunacy or disrespect, but scientists are more often > wrong than right (otherwise scientists would have little to do). The > journalist is right to seek holes in your argument. > > This effort to seek balance does create problems -- such as in coverage > of the seemingly never-ending discussion of whether humans are causing > climate change, or in stories about evolution versus creationism -- when > it creates the notion that a crackpot viewpoint is equally valid to a > well studied and reasoned scientific position. Sloppy reporters, > uneducated reporters, and time-challenged reporters may not take or have > the time to do a proper screening of sources. Good reporters might seek > out rivals that you despise (I would, and frankly, you would want us to > treat politicians the same way.) Nitwit editors may screw up otherwise > spotless copy. And some news organizations -- especially one that > claims to be "fair and balanced" -- are blatantly unfair and unbalanced. > > But most of us journalists try to do the best job we can in the time we > have. (It would help if the public did a better job of recognizing > competent journalism and was willing to pay for it -- it's hard for a > good journalist to do a good job if he can't pay the bills doing that job.) > > It would help if scientists, when speaking to the press, would say > things clearly and concisely. The public may need to know that cis- and > trans-fats are different, but hardly any of them need to understand in > detail the geometry of the molecule. What do YOU say? I would should > say the two versions of the molecule are mirror images (shapes) of one > another. Our body can metabolize one shape, but does a crappy job on > the other. That other shape in turn causes health problems (or more > severe health problems) when our body doesn't deal with it. > > McNeely brings up the story of Carl Sagan, who was a pretty damned good > scientist. He was screwed by members of the priesthood who repudiated > his efforts to educate the public. SHAME ON THE PRIESTHOOD! The public > that ultimately funds your work has a right to understand what you do > with its money. Those of you who fail to recognize that fact, and who > stonewall efforts at learning about your work, are likely in store for a > rough time keeping your job in this political climate. > > Keep in mind the chaos of Climate-gate (two of my e-mails were among the > thousands released in the hack.) The CRU folks, some of whom I know and > greatly respect, responded in an understandable but self-destructive > fashion to the abuse of FOI laws by certain critics of their research. > If only their jobs had been affected, it would have been bad, but the > effect would have been limited. As it was, Climate-gate has been used > to "prove" a lot of the science was fraudulent. Progress toward > addressing the climate (and generic fossil fuel) problem have been stalled. > > We don't need more problems like that. That's why scientists, whether > in the "hard" sciences or the arts and humanities, should do a better > job of clearly and concisely communicating their work to the public. > And they need to learn how to effectively use the press to do so. > > Dave > > On 4/8/2011 6:53 PM, Lisa Dawn Cox wrote: > > Let's face it: not everyone is going to be a scientist when s/he grows up, > > just like not everyone is going to be a journalist or politician (again, > > thank God.) > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected] > 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
