Already a member? Log in

Sign up with your...

or

Sign Up with your email address

Add Tags

Duplicate Tags

Rename Tags

Share It With Others!

Save Link

Sign in

Sign Up with your email address

Sign up

By clicking the button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions.

Forgot Password?

Please enter your username below and press the send button.
A password reset link will be sent to you.

If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.

ADVERTISEMENT

Links 1 through 10 of 32 by Martin Griffiths tagged newmedia

But the internet is undermining this pattern, which is good. Let the big journals publish their own press releases and link to the original studies. Science writers who know enough can add the context and scepticism that the publisher would probably leave out. By linking, others can alert users to new work without treating each week's big paper as "news", which was more of an artefact of the embargo system. The true import of new research will not be known for years and will not come in the form of a press release. Freed from the "paper of the week" model, science journalists have a better chance of reporting what is slowly coming into view as genuine discovery. Scientists with a gift for explanation can also get into the game.

Share It With Others!

In which case… shouldn’t the science blogging community, and Research Blogs in particular, be a goldmine for journalists? It’s basically a list of scientists (and others.. but many scientists) who want to talk about what they’re doing, make a point to keep in touch with what’s happening in their field (and others), and whose work you can evaluate before even speaking with them. Is this biased reporting? I don’t think so – unless they’re your friends, that is.

Share It With Others!

Competition with internet blogs could stir science journalists in traditional media to correct systemic faults in science reporting, says John Rennie

Share It With Others!

“There is much more collaboration between mainstream media and bloggers,” said Ed Yong, a twenty-nine-year-old British science writer who works by day at a cancer research society and moonlights as the author of the prize-winning Discover blog, Not Exactly Rocket Science. “We’re increasingly becoming each others’ watchdogs and sources. Those roles are intertwining.”

Share It With Others!

With that in mind, my summary of the 2011 conference, which occurred last weekend, attempts to highlight not just the things that were said, but the things that were not said; or, more broadly, the undercurrents and unresolved issues that I feel are going to be an important component of these conversations in the next 12 months.

Share It With Others!

But one thing irked me, and it's something that I've seen a lot in similar posts (so apologies to Daniel for singling this out; it's just a case study for a wider phenomenon). He writes, "Altshuler’s skeptical view of the paper was fairly widely shared by colleagues I discussed this with yesterday", and "The buzz amongst the genomics community on Twitter was generally similarly negative" and "Some researchers I spoke to also had specific concerns about the methods".

Share It With Others!

Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react.

Share It With Others!

You are a young journo. You get an assignment. You don't know where to start. But you follow and are followed by a bunch of scientists and science journalists you just met at ScienceOnline2010. So you tweet.....and within minutes your story takes off:

Share It With Others!

To begin with, I'm not sure you can draw a particularly solid line between bloggers and journalists. Many bloggers that Wired, Discover, and SciAm rely on for web content are professional journalists. And, the ones who aren't have trained themselves, as has been true of a certain percentage of journalists for decades. The point is--most bloggers on legacy media websites are providing quality journalism. And that's what matters (or should matter.) If we're talking about editors choosing bad journalism (done by interns, bloggers, or little green elves) because it's cheaper, that's a mar on their integrity. Someone's not doing their job correctly, and it's that person who should be held accountable. So, if it's a question of bad journalism devaluing good journalism, it don't think it works that way.

Share It With Others!

What's new is the diversity of reporting, along with a growing number of people in a position to -- as David Dobbs says -- "call bullshit" on bad writing. Blogs, mainstream science reporting, emerging writers, podcasts -- all provide overlapping channels of information at multiple levels to overlapping audiences. The resulting community is much smaller than the pooled readership of its printed or online output, but vastly larger than the combined Rolodexes of top science journalists 10 years ago.

Share It With Others!

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT