Monthly Archives: July 2013

Nature: independent science journalism needed

The journal Nature weighs in with an editorial about the ongoing need for independent science journalists that are ready to go beyond press releases and truly investigate scientific matters. Money quote:

Expensive, time-consuming and often unpopular with readers, this is the science journalism that is most in danger. It is the science journalism that needs to survive if the public is to be properly informed and the powerful to be held accountable.

Read the full Nature editorial.

Outcomes of global survey now available

General outcomes of the global survey on ‘blurring lines’, also sometimes referred to as ‘science journalism and other hats’, have now been published. Thanks to all 403 science journalists who took the time to answer the questions.
The survey will remain a key source of information for the debate and will therefore continue to be available directly from the menu at the top of this blog.

Here’s just one of many fascinating charts:

Further analysis of the data, for example to compare answers from various world regions or self-identified groups, may follow, so stay tuned for that. For now, full general survey outcomes have arrived.

The Helsinki Debate: another inside report

Anne SassoAnne Sasso, the second of our speakers at the Helsinki Debate, posted some thoughts from before and after the session on The Science Writer’s Handbook website.

Money quote:

“Of course, it’s easy to follow strict rules when you’re earning a good salary, have benefits and enjoy a relative degree of stability. It’s another thing entirely in the freelance world. Step outside the world of newspaper journalism and the rules—if there are any—seem highly arbitrary.”

Read Anne’s post in full.

The Helsinki Debate: an inside report

Kai KupferschmidtKai Kupferschmidt, our first speaker at the Helsinki Debate, posted a report on his experiences with the debate on his blog.

Money quote:

“After the opening statements, Peter presented some ethical dilemmas and people in the room were asked to go to one side of the room if they answered yes and the other side if they answered no. It was a great tool, because it meant that everybody in the session was taking a stance and could be called upon to justify it. It made for a lively, fun hour, but I also came away from it with a strong feeling that the lines were indeed blurring, or as someone pointed out, the lines might be clear, but people are jumping back and forth over those lines more and more. Journalists, then, are becoming blurry.”

Read Kai’s report in full.