Comments on: Life (via the Guardian)

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:01:08 +0000

Michael….. good to have you reading….. I’ll be doing plenty more on science journalism, (and you’ll find other posts in the archive on it) so please stck around and keep coming back… and keep commenting. Great to have you…

Cheers,

-cvj

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:22:06 +0000

Late last night I realised I hadn’t added something I meant to in the interests of full disclosure: I work for New Scientist. Your comments (on science journalism and NS covers) duly noted.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:58:46 +0000

Michael. Thanks. I know about the science section changes. It was discussed here. an eye is being kept on the issue. Feel free to come and tell us here or elsewhere what you think about the new coverage. And we've been following the Ashes (with the help of Adam) here. We know the result. And, in my opinion, New Scientist -the magazine- is not a pleasure read in print any more. I intensely dislike the sensationalist approach it takes to presenting its front cover. However, several of my posts (have a look) on news in science have bene informed by New Scientist's online site. So yes, I've heard of it. Thanks for letting me know though. I'm always glad to see people reading and commenting on the older posts. Thanks. Cheers, -cvj

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:38:35 +0000

OK, I’m late here, but I can bring you up to date, at least. Life has now ended and transformed into a daily science page in the Guardian as of this week. Time will tell how it works. As for the pinnacle of British science journalism, ever heard of New Scientist magazine (also on sale in the US)? It’s weekly, Sean Carroll seems to get quoted in it a lot, and it’s — you guessed it — all about science. And it’s pretty good. Am I allowed to say that?

And we won the Ashes (what? you don’t read all the posts on this blog?). Absolutely marvellous being English, what?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:01:41 +0000

I tend to agree Clifford. I am generally a fan of British print media, but the science reporting tends to be disappointing. There are some exceptions and the “bad science” section you mention is certainly somewhere I used to link to occasionally.

By: Reader

Reader — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:29:27 +0000

> Following in the tradition of doing big science stories by focusing on a personality, instead of the science…

Always an annoyance, says this science writer whose memories go back to the late-70s surge that brought Science Times, OMNI, Discover, etc. The underlying assumption is: “Readers will be scared off by too much attention to the center of Scientist X’s working life… so let’s sugar-coat the pill by giving 60% of the story to her white-water rafting, avid gardening, and extensive collection of Dilbert cartoons.”

One sees it again and again, and mutters under one’s breath: “Einstein on a bike”…