I went to Nude Sensationalist to find a typical bad article, and look what they’ve got:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.300-media-distortion-damages-both-science-and-journalism.html

Now, I’m not blaming all science journalists by any means, and I like a few very, very much. But, again, the overall state of the field strikes me as rather pathetic. Not only do I not worry about losing it all that much, I don’t worry about losing most newspapers either. Evolution, baby. I say, start a science journalism co-op or something, go indie. Charge a subscription fee, and see where it gets you. I guarantee if it’s good I’ll pay up and read.

If what you mean by the phrase is that readers are reading blogs rather than papers then, dude, it already has for many and the numbers are stacking up. If you mean something other than that, then why? It’s been said that professional journalists have all these things like neutrality, a budget, etc but there’s little evidence that readers are getting any value for this.

If journalists were doing all the things they claim to be good for, would we have had WMDs, anthrax, you name it where they pushed a lie for some corporate interest or other? Michael Brooks upthread was moaning about an imagined conflict of interest and Sean pointed out that there wasn’t one. Even if there were, what readers want is the writer to have a real interest in the subject, just as we have. Instead, what we get is what Low Math… said: Extremely low standards and butchery of the facts.

For professional journalists, the only real defence of their behaviors seems to be that they are writing for a wider audience, that they are controlled by editors, proprietors and such. The fact that the interests of bloggers and their readers (all four of them) are aligned is a good thing. The fact that bloggers are not beholden to others is a good thing. The fact that bloggers know their subject as their day job is a good thing. Tell me again what journalists are good for.

Playing that role isn’t as glamorous or exciting as spouting off about the latest cool gadget or discovery but it’s part of the larger role that journalism plays in a democracy. And in some ways it’s becoming more difficult as large institutions go direct via the web and cut out the “middleman,” as it were.

Interestingly enough though, I have an older sister off in biology grad school who is now intent on doing science journalism once she finishes. Runs in the family I suppose?

I’m not sure who or what is responsible for this. It’s easy to pick on the likes of newspapers, or the journalists, but I suspect they’re stuck giving the public what they want. Probably, if some-or-other paper made an effort to improve, it would be rewarded by their readership fleeing to other, less demanding sources.

In sum, the enemy is us, and science journalism is probably helpless to change the market forces our collective demand generates. Meanwhile, some individuals at least now have somewhere else to go, and that’s a good thing.