Comments on: Apocalypse Via Press Release

By: Martin Weiss

Martin Weiss — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:00:33 +0000

The major problem I see is that the editor is no substittue for peer review and the postings, which really are press relases and marketing tools, can be picked up and amplified through the blogosphere again with no peer review. If amplified suffieicnetly journalists are left having to straighten the mess out; sometimes.

By: Alice

Alice — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:54:58 +0000

Nice piece. I think you are completely right that Futurity may “allow universities and research institutions to go straight to the reader”, but that this sort of (PR) info is only a starting point. It needs analysis, further research, critique and discussion (all of which a decent journalist will provide).

News isn’t simply a matter of distributing knowledge, it’s way more analytical. Even science news (I’d say *especially* science news). What kind of early 20th century model of news media are they using?

Moreover, in this world of ‘YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook’ the Futurity puff describe, there is a greater capacity for people who aren’t professional journalists do do this sort of analytical work too. For me, the claims of Futurity can only really convince if they set themselves up in a way whcih fully embraces transparency and encourages citizen journalism. They have a comments function, but not an especially sophisticated one, and links to the major brands of web 2.0, but not, significantly I felt, to Wikipedia or even a trail to other places these topics had been picked up and discussed.

Frankly, they need to do a bit better, else the project simply becomes an exercise in institutionalising churnalism.

By: Jdhuey

Jdhuey — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:16:50 +0000

Whenever someone mentions ’science’ and ‘press release’, the words ‘cold fusion’ immediately pop into my mind It is my impression that press releases, and their subsequent retelling in the popular media, are the only exposure to the world of science that most people have. What they really aren’t told and they just don’t understand is how tentative the results in these reports should be treated. What happens is that people become very cynical about the process of science. The comments that I hear from my family, friends and colleagues (all well educated by not scientists) is things like: – ‘everything in the world causes cancer in white mice’, and ‘the cure for any disease is always 5 to 10 years in the future’ and ‘next week they’ll announce that just the opposite is true’. I’m throwing out the conjecture that the problems that Science faces today, vis-a-vis the general public, is the result of being overexposed to this type of direct feed of initial results. I think that the general public feels about the process of science the same way that the old joke talks about making laws and sausages – they really don’t want to be exposed to the initial stages.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:49:42 +0000

There is another side to this and that is more sociological: news consumption (or media consumption). in other words, how people get their news and information. Hopefully some journalism schools have research going on in this area (but in cases I’ve seen it is being done by other departments but not j-schools. Regardless, the point is that a growing number of consumers are looking for their news based on content and not based on the organization delivering it to them. The danger here is that a poorly research blog post can have as much power as a front page NYT article given that some readers don’t pay attention to the source or understand the importance of having an independent third-party journalist. the danger isn’t futurity, the danger is the news aggregators who repurpose the stories and feed them to people who cannot differentiate between PR and news.

By: Michael Kenward

Michael Kenward — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:09:57 +0000

You write:

“But I always press releases as a starting point.”

There is something missing in there. It could be important.

“see”? “use”?

Carl: “treat.” Thanks for catching that.

By: celia

celia — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:00:48 +0000

Maybe Futurity could increase its objectivity by paying some of the unemployed science writers (and even scientists not connected to the research) to read, comment, and ask questions (in lay language) about the posted items. If all of the universities kicked in for this “other viewpoint” service, the commentators would not be beholden.

Beyond the site’s inherent conflict of interest (the interests of the readers vs. the universities in publicizing their research) I also worry about whether the Futurity editor is keeping an eye on the researchers’ conflicts of interest. At least a portion of the lousy research being put out by people with academic affiliations is being funded by commercial concerns.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:45:02 +0000

I discussed Futurity with various people last week…it’s not a whole lot different from Newswise, AlphaGalileo, Eurekalert etc etc etc, except that it’s a PR machine run by the universities instead of being a repository for press releases. As bad as churnalism can be, at least it’s an editor or a journalist picking what’s interesting rather than the organizations promoting their own material.

By: Gaythia

Gaythia — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:18:28 +0000

I don’t believe that it is surprising that new marketing ploys have been invented for new media venues. Running press releases verbatim without attribution is nothing new. Nor has independent reporting always been available.

Universities have generally published what are essentially promotional magazines. This website needs to be identified as being in that genre. Or editing needs to be brought in that helps it rise to a higher level.

In the past, some print journals and newspapers managed to distinguish themselves from the “yellow journalism pack”. They became identified as reliable, independent and truthful sources of news.

Mechanisms need to be developed that help the public sort through internet sources.

By: Eric the Leaf

Eric the Leaf — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:36:53 +0000

Regarding the story itself, I question the premise of maintaining the Holocene state. Even without human action, the Holocene state will not be maintained. The article says nothing about “maintaining” levels of human population, currently made possible by gargantuan energy subsidies obtained by the drawdown of ancient sunlight. The article fails to address biological overshoot.

By: Abel Pharmboy

Abel Pharmboy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:29:19 +0000

Whoops! Did I just type “let’s?” That is why I’m not a paid journalist.

By: Abel Pharmboy

Abel Pharmboy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:28:40 +0000

When the J-school let’s this scientist into class to talk about online science media, I say the same things I tell my pharm grad students: get the original paper and read what you can understand, then ask people in the field (not authors or otherwise affiliated with the research team) for their opinions. Like Mr Zimmer, I have several PIO colleagues whose writing and sober perspectives I respect. But, by and large, Futurity is likely to be a great, one-stop aggregator of press releases – no more.

By: Anne H

Anne H — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:00:45 +0000

This is another round-up site that I really enjoy: http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/

It picks out interesting science topics, collects the current coverage of the topic, and editorializes a bit about how various writers or newspapers are covering it. The articles at the top of the site today are about artificial noses, meteor showers, and electric cars. There’s something here for the newspaper junkie as well as the curious reader.