Experiments In Science Journalism

Science journalism is under pressure, but just like in science itself, the solution(s) are experimental.

AsianScientist (Jun. 22, 2015) – We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again (and again): science journalism is important.

And judging from the frequency at which posts from iflscience appear on my Facebook feed, the demand for science-related stories is strong. But there remains a substantive difference between stories about cute animals or head transplants (what The Guardian calls infotainment) and journalistic features that help readers think more deeply about urgent issues like climate change, neglected tropical diseases and the challenges of meeting the energy needs of the world.

The key difference is the commitment to journalistic values, summarized in a keynote speech by Dan Fagin at the recent World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) as verification, clarity, transparency, fairness and context. Fagin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, veteran environmental journalist and faculty at New York University, issued a rousing call for science journalists to fight not just for their own survival, but for the continuation of the profession and even democracy itself.

Dan Fagin and I at the World Conference of Science Journalists 2015, Seoul, South Korea.
Dan Fagin and I at the World Conference of Science Journalists 2015, Seoul, South Korea.

But how can this be done?


Feeding the freelancers

As a scientist-turned-journalist who is fairly new to the game, being at WCSJ 2015 was an eye-opening experience. In particular, I was struck by the structure of the science journalism industry, with a few editors occupying relatively stable, salaried positions and scores of freelancers trying to make a living as wordsmiths. Nowhere was this more clearly played out than at the ‘Meet the editors’ session where ten plucky writers pitched their ideas to a panel of exacting editors and roomful of colleagues.

But lest you get the impression that editors are evil [I am, admittedly, one myself.], I got the sense that many editors genuinely felt concerned for their younger, less established colleagues who represent the future of the profession.

Fagin and others acknowledged that science stories, often seen as ‘soft’ news, are typically the first casualties of shrinking newsrooms. And while the demand for science stories is certainly healthy, the appetite for paid content or subscription-based models is much (much) more modest.

“One strong lesson of the last quarter-century is that we need not be passive in the face of change,” Fagin said.

“Instead, we’re going to need to be proactive and to continuously experiment and innovate in the digital space, and we’re also going to need to work aggressively to grab the public’s attention and show it why a free press and the independent verification of information matters.” [Editor’s note: italics added.]



Failing fast

I have to admit that when Fagin said ‘experiment,’ in my mind I heard ‘—and fail.’ Perhaps this is the difference that being a scientist has made; we are well accustomed to failed experiments. But we also know that perseverance pays off, and we also believe in trying new approaches when old ones fail.

Asian Scientist itself is one such experiment. Last year, we took the leap and went into print, taking on all the costs that entails. This year, we’ve organized a science writing competition with the Science Center Singapore and our sponsor World Scientific Publishing Company, as a way of both rewarding great writers financially and helping them gain visibility.

Although I certainly hope that our experiments take off, I do recognize that they are but one way of helping science journalism survive and adapt to the changing media landscape. Just as the academic publishing industry is trying out new models like post-publication peer review to make science better, I don’t believe that any one science news outlet has found the perfect system yet, and that many of us trying and ‘failing fast’ is probably better for science in the long run.

After all, as Fagin put it, “We don’t have the luxury of being low-key in advocating for our craft.”



This article is from a monthly column called From The Editor’s Desk(top). Click here to see the other articles in this series.

—–

Copyright: Asian Scientist Magazine; Photo: Shutterstock.
Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily reflect the views of AsianScientist or its staff.

Rebecca did her PhD at the National University of Singapore where she studied how macrophages integrate multiple signals from the toll-like receptor system. She was formerly the editor-in-chief of Asian Scientist Magazine.

Related Stories from Asian Scientist