http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3894 Richard Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:26:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3894 On timestamping stories - it is essential that 'living stories' be timestamped as they are altered. (Wikipedia does this through its talk pages). This is a big fail for the BBC (to pick one) - they should timestamp updates to science stories so you can see where corrections happen. On timestamping stories – it is essential that ‘living stories’ be timestamped as they are altered. (Wikipedia does this through its talk pages). This is a big fail for the BBC (to pick one) – they should timestamp updates to science stories so you can see where corrections happen.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3893 Regnier Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:13:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3893 On living stories - it does seem as though this is an approach that would work particularly well in science, where new research perhaps shouldn't be reported except in the context of all previous work, current (competing) hypotheses and so on. But it wouldn't exactly be "news" to say that the weight of scientific evidence has today shifted slightly towards hypothesis X thanks to new research published in A Good Peer-Reviewed Journal. I'm tempted to say that the demise of science in the news might be good for science - as long as there is some other outlet for current scientific information that has a regular trigger / reason for people to go and look at it. Which could be difficult to engineer. On the question of PR or journalism / journalism or churnalism: the line from Google and even some media outlets is that <i>quantity</i> of content is king. So who cares who produced it (note the BBC and others who often beg viewers/listeners to send in their views, or the US outlets who quote people's facebook messages as if it's considered comment) as long as it fills the airwaves for a few precious seconds? This came up in the investigative science journalism strand (hope to see your blog on that soon, Ed) and it may be that journalists will suffer while the new platforms dictate that something be said regardless of how interesting it is. Hopefully a new appetite for <i>quality</i> of content will arise, and this new journalism will demand its platforms, rather than the platforms demanding whatever content is available. On living stories – it does seem as though this is an approach that would work particularly well in science, where new research perhaps shouldn’t be reported except in the context of all previous work, current (competing) hypotheses and so on. But it wouldn’t exactly be “news” to say that the weight of scientific evidence has today shifted slightly towards hypothesis X thanks to new research published in A Good Peer-Reviewed Journal. I’m tempted to say that the demise of science in the news might be good for science – as long as there is some other outlet for current scientific information that has a regular trigger / reason for people to go and look at it. Which could be difficult to engineer.
On the question of PR or journalism / journalism or churnalism: the line from Google and even some media outlets is that quantity of content is king. So who cares who produced it (note the BBC and others who often beg viewers/listeners to send in their views, or the US outlets who quote people’s facebook messages as if it’s considered comment) as long as it fills the airwaves for a few precious seconds? This came up in the investigative science journalism strand (hope to see your blog on that soon, Ed) and it may be that journalists will suffer while the new platforms dictate that something be said regardless of how interesting it is. Hopefully a new appetite for quality of content will arise, and this new journalism will demand its platforms, rather than the platforms demanding whatever content is available.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3892 Alex Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:41:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/06/30/world-conference-of-science-journalists-new-media-new-journalism/#comment-3892 Funny that Google News would have anything worthwhile to say about Science journalism. Google's news page lumps science into the Tech business section, so that any actual science is buried by news about iPhone releases and telecom industry mergers. Google is perhaps the worst science news aggregator I've seen anywhere. Funny that Google News would have anything worthwhile to say about Science journalism.
Google’s news page lumps science into the Tech business section, so that any actual science is buried by news about iPhone releases and telecom industry mergers. Google is perhaps the worst science news aggregator I’ve seen anywhere.

]]>