The American Association for the Advancement of Science has just published an in-depth recap of the May 1 panel that I attended concerning the sorry state, and uncertain future, of science journalism--the key informational conduit between the scientific community and the adult public. Essentially, a number of points and trends about science in the media were highlighted on the panel--and are recapped in the article--of which I would single out at least these three:
1. Trained science journalists remain exceedingly valuable and are still needed in the media. Cristine Russell, of the Harvard Kennedy School, pointed to the swine flu story as a great example of why we need science specialists in the media. Simply put, nobody else knows how to handle such a technically complex, yet unquestionably urgent, story. "We have been reminded of the need for science and medical journalists who are trained to explain the differences between pandemics and epidemics," said Russell of the swine flu saga. How tragic, then, that these journalists are losing their jobs amid the current, Internet-driven media industry upheaval. 2. In the future, universities and scientific institutions may become key purveyors of science news content. If science coverage is vanishing in the traditional media, then who will fill the gap and continue to produce it? Why, university public affairs departments, for one. Joann Rodgers, who heads that very office at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, observed at the AAAS panel that [this is a paraphrase] "some research institutions now communicate science news directly to the public, instead of going through mediators such as science journalists." Rodgers added that this is a growing trend--direct-to-the-public communication of science, without a middleman. 3. Blogging isn't necessarily much replacement for what is being lost in the old media when it comes to science. This is the argument that I hammered on the AAAS panel. In the summary piece, I am quoted calling the blogosphere a "Wild, Wild West" and saying that its science-related content, while valuable, is no substitute for "the standards and careful nuances of traditional science journalism, which is dying." I also add that "The web empowers, but it empowers good and bad alike. Misinformation not only competes with but often defeats good information."
There's a lot more to be said as well--I encourage you to read the whole AAAS article here. In sum: We are at a time of massive media transition, driven by technological and market forces, and there's no telling precisely what "science journalism" will look like once a new stability is discovered at some point in the future. But I fear that once the "creative destruction" abates and we are able to look around us again, we might not see much left standing, or appreciate the view. There is also vastly more on all of this in Unscientific America....
