How Science Reporting Works

submit to reddit

Not quite the science news cycle or adventures with media, but close:


August 31st, 2009 by Sheril Kirshenbaum in Media and Science | 6 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

6 Responses to “How Science Reporting Works”

  1. 1.   Walker Says:

    Today’s comic on science publishing is even better. It perfectly captures the “least publishable unit” phenomena that I have run into many, many times.

  2. 2.   ARJ Says:

    In fairness though, it’s not just science reporting… it’s reporting on most serious subjects… politics, economics, war/foreign policy, even the arts… by practical necessity it’s all condensed and oversimplified to the point of being error-prone. The errors and misinformation in the reporting on healthcare reform have been abysmal (but predictable).

  3. 3.   » Blog Archive » O cientista e o repórter Says:

    [...] Via Discover [...]

  4. 4.   MadScientist Says:

    Speaking of publishing – at a somewhat recent event one of the Murdochs told the audience that profit is the only guarantor of unbiased reporting – naturally I laughed until I was wheezing. “Fox News” is undoubtedly profitable but it is rarely, if ever, unbiased – and it is controlled by the Murdochs of course.

  5. 5.   Ethan Siegel Says:

    Sheril,

    Thanks for this one! Although I often look at the actual science and the news articles that result and am appalled, my own personal experience with journalists has been very good. They’ve been accurate, circumspect, and have asked multiple follow-up questions to ensure that they’ve understood me correctly. (This is, admittedly, based on a small sample size of about 5.)

    How much of the problem do you think is unscrupulous, sensationalistic journalists (which certainly exist), and how much of the problem do you think is on the heads of scientists, who can’t form a complete sentence that can be understood by a non-scientist?

  6. 6.   Roman Says:

    Hilarious!!!

Leave a Reply