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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Secondly, the editor can alter the copy on a whim for the sake of presentation with no independent reporting, no conferring with the original author, and no review of the original research or discussion with the researcher involved. That makes Futurity nothing more than a fancy rewrite service, at best, and a potential for inaccurate science communication at worst.

Equally telling is the fact that while Futurity could easily link back to the original story on the web — virtually all research universities post their releases there and have for years — but instead, they point to the generic institutional homepage. That’s hardly an argument that the Futurity site is trying to fill the emptiness caused by a loss of conventional media science writing.

What this, and another half-dozen points that irk me, clearly demonstrates is that this is purely a marketing ploy by these institutions. And while the myriad of university press releases sent last week touting their partnership with the Futurity project arose from highly prestigious institutions, the list of those universities who have decided not to play is equally impressive.

There is a need to supplement the current dwindling amount of science reporting available — most of which is extremely good — but suggesting that the approach Futurity’s supporters offer is the answer only reinforces thoughtful observers’ views that it is purely a gimmick.

One answer would be for research universities to commit themselves to reporting on science in more of a true journalistic fashion, and to embrace the traits of accuracy, relevance, and context and reject the ploys meant to increase visibility for the institution. The simple truth is that if the research is good and important it will garner appropriate notice. In essence, let the news stand on its own and let the public decide.

Some of us have being doing this for years. We need others to climb on board!

I do have two issues with it:
There’s nothing on the site that necessarily indicates to the public the status of the material there, and its potentially one-sided perspective on matters. Instead, the site is set up to indicate that the service has been endorsed by serious universities, which suggests a credibility the content won’t necessarily deserve.

There’s only one editor. Some press releases promote fringe ideas as if they were mainstream. Others promote interpretations of the data that aren’t in the publications the PR is based on. The lone editor has been given the job of culling these, and she just can’t have sufficient expertise to do that properly in all fields. And that’s a problem.