On Research…

The soon-to-be-lost art of science reporting . . .

Science Writer

While all eyes have been focused on the potential disintegration of the auto industry, a surprisingly silent and astonishingly broad purging has been taking place throughout some of America’s major news media.

And while some may immediately react with, “It serves them right,” the truth is that the scientific and medical communities may suffer the most from this loss.

Among the most visible to suffer the ax was the CNN reporting team assigned to cover science, medicine, the environment and technology, including long-time correspondent Miles O’Brien. These specialists were charged with monitoring advances in these fields and informing the public. And while some might argue over just how well they did the job, without them there, what will happen to news about science?

The CNN move, no matter how prominent, is dwarfed by the flood of dismissals throughout the Gannett chain, publisher of USAToday, where nearly 1,800 newspaper jobs were eliminated as of yesterday (12/4). Other news media outlets and chains, while smaller, have been cutting back as well and the trend is clearly eliminating both specialist reporters and those with ample experience.

The explanations lie with economics – that substantive cuts in staffing are needed to insure that media organizations are viably profitable, although the newspaper profits have generally run higher than those of other industries. So-called “niche” or specialist reporters and veteran journalists are much too costly. New young reporters are “fresher” in their approach, media outlets argue.

And much, much cheaper, the outlets seldom admit.

CNN’s spokesperson explained it this way: “We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand-alone unit.” Translation: “We want specialized topics covered by generalist reporters.”

Researchers should see this as more than just worrisome.

As science, medical and environmental reporters lose their jobs, the journalists knocking on scientists’ doors are going to be even more clueless about the research they’re sent to report. They’re likely to lack an understanding of the scientific method – how research is done – much less any kind of institutional memory to guide them in determining what new findings are truly important.

For researchers, dealing with the news media has always been a mixed bag. While the recognition that comes with news coverage is usually pleasing, occasionally the coverage is embarrassingly wrong, making investigators more reluctant to deal with journalists in the past. In the future, instead of a science or medical writer, the researcher may be trying to explain genomics to a reporter who usually covers the local school board.

The ranks of journalists have ebbed and flowed in the past. There’s no guarantee that in the future, specialist reporters will be brought back. Therefore for public research institutions, the obligation to accurately describe the work they do has just increased several orders of magnitude.

With the internet’s ability to convey information, the drawbacks of eliminating the news-media middleman from telling the public about science are diminished.

But the responsibility also increases. Journalists have argued, right or wrong, that they were the ones to provide an unbiased view and maintain the credibility of the information passed along to readers. With their fading from the system, we need to insure that what we tell the public is free of spin and agenda, but still full of wonder.

Public research institutions will now need, more than ever, to carry the mantle of public trust.

Whether we like it or not.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks