Comments on: Rebooting science journalism – on blurring boundaries, money, audiences and duck sex

By: An outbreak of crankiness – UPDATED « Dr Aust’s Spleen

An outbreak of crankiness – UPDATED « Dr Aust’s Spleen — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:07:46 +0000

[...] what you write is good science writing – in which, as writer/blogger Ed Yong articulates here, accuracy, truth and independence play a major part – or bad science [...]

By: When is a blogger/journalist/communicator not a blogger/journalist/communicator? « A Life of Pi

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:39:15 +0000

[...] whether something was good science writing or not was all that mattered – more on his views here. He also compared the debate to the film Titanic: “Tedious. Goes on forever. Never leads anywhere [...]

By: CarlosT

CarlosT — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:34:20 +0000

southlakesmom, I read the intro that was available through Amazon, and that’s a book I’m definitely going to pick up.
One of the things that has always puzzled me about managers’ love for extrinsic motivation is that they don’t seem to see that attaching a reward to something also attaches a value to it, specifically the value of the reward. That can be problematic.
I once worked at an accounting firm and they wanted to reduce the crush of tax returns processed in March and April. This was a goal that everyone in the firm could get behind, since that period can get extremely busy and stressful. So, really, all you’d need to motivate people to make this happen is to say it’s a goal, and let people figure it out for themselves. Instead, they set up an incentive system where if the office finished a certain number of returns early each month, we’d each get a $25 gift certificate.
Unsurprisingly, this utterly failed as a motivator. If the goal was reached in a particular month, it was purely by coincidence. No one really felt like putting in the extra effort required day after day to get the returns done early for a measly $25.

By: southlakesmom

southlakesmom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:25:37 +0000

Ed, I highly recommend
“DRIVE: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” by Daniel Pink.
I see a whole new world coming along with the study of why on earth people do something that doesn’t pay well . . . if we start to understand that and design work that is keyed to that, we might just be able to move past Might usually trumping Right. It’s a hope anyway.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:05:25 +0000

Er, oops. Fixed. Sorry David, it must have been the influence of Carl’s mind-altering parasites.
And I’m suddenly filled with the urge to never complain about slow NHS waiting times again…

By: David Dobbs

David Dobbs — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:06:54 +0000

Hey no fair! I just noticed the link on my names in the post links to Zimmer’s page. Do all my checks to there too? Apparently the Zimmer virus-parasite works in many ways.
Tell you what- link HIS name to MY page and we’ll be all set.

By: DeLene Beeland

DeLene Beeland — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:23:26 +0000

Yes — health insurance is a bear! Not to mention saving for retirement, children’s college education, and on and on.

By: David Dobbs

David Dobbs — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:43:35 +0000

Ed,
yes, per-word pay rates in US are higher. But for freelancers, significant percentages of their pay is gobbled up by cost of health insurance and care — a burden much lighter on UK writers. A US freelance writing 40,000 words a year at $1.25/word — an unusually busy and successful freelancer, that — would earn $50,000 but pay about $4000 to Social Security and anywhere from $6000 to $12000 to health insurance premiums alone — and still be liable for $2000 to $20,000 in medical bills to pay the deductible if the writer or a family member actually used medical services. In my own family, eg, we paid $13,000 in premiums in 2008; another $6500 in unreimbursed medical costs, though no one got hospitalized, underwent any but minor treatment, or had a prescription; and $3000 in routine dental (premiums, checkups, and a few fillings). a healthy family of 5, kids 19, 8, and 4 now. $22,000 in med insurance and costs, and noone really sick or injured.
I used to have years where I didn’t even make 22000. And though I’m enjoying unusually
good fortune as a freelancer right now, med costs consume a hefty portion of my income — if I write that 40,000 words (whichnis about right) over 50 cents a word. So for freelancers buying their own health insurance, the US per-word rates are not so high as they may seem. Anyone calculating the theoretical income gain of moving to and writing in the US market should discount the potential income gain accordingly.
And this with all mag markets, including the better-paying ones I’ve had the luck to write for, cutting page numbers, story assignments, and in some cases folding.

By: DeLene Beeland

DeLene Beeland — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:23:59 +0000

Ed, the amount paid varies by publication of course but in the U.S. $1 or $1.10/word is widely considered the “professional rate.” I’m reminded by those in the biz longer than me that this has not increased in a decade or more (sagging relative to cost of living rises, inflation, etc). And most newspapers do not pay this rate, not regional ones anyways. Maybe Mr. Zimmer can enlighten us at to what the NYT offers for entry freelance rates (I think it’s a $1/word?). For comparison, I just filed an 850 word story with a regional paper that pays $200 flat. Lowest rate I’ve been paid, but I make it up in other areas. Some people argue too that a per word rate is not a good yardstick for value. I have to agree. Some stories take a lot longer to research and produce, others you can churn out in an hour or two. Those are elements I try to keep in mind in deciding if a client is going to work out or not. Also consider assignments versus pitches (having the topic and even key sources handed to you by the editor, so you don’t expend time searching and pitching… I love assignments). But now I’m digressing far past the bounds of blogging.

By: Alice

Alice — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:40:17 +0000

Great post. I especially liked the point about how science stories can end up in all sorts of places, such as nano-stories in online blacksmithing communities.
It reminds me of one of the interesting things Henry said in the seminar he gave our students – that you can’t know/ predict your audience for online writing in quite the ways science communication has traditionally sought to. You can get a feel for who your regulars are, and/ or try to foster a sense of community, etc, but if things are going to get boing’ed or forwarded, RT-ed, etc all sorts of people might come to your content in all sorts of ways (at all sorts of times).
I think the pass-ing on culture is an important part of the ‘new ecosystem’, and will become increasingly so. It’s a way in which people who aren’t any form of ‘journagger’ or ‘bloggalists’ – or even a commentator on a blog – interact and ‘make’ a story.
I supervised an ace dissertation last summer about Digg. The student wanted to think about the role of these audiences who weren’t necessarily engaging at a deep level (or even always actually reading the pieces they promoted) but were still impacting on news-making by “screaming from the sidelines”. Specifically, he wanted to see if the same criteria media studies people traditionally argue journalists use to define what makes a good story (e.g. novelty, facticity, being about duck sex) could be spotted in terms of what stories people choose to promote with each other. This dissertation’s most memorable finding, for me, was that although negativity is generally seen as a criteria for news (we report bad news rather than good), the science stories on Digg were largely positive.
People like to share nice things with each other, at least in terms of science. Now, isn’t that lovely? (well, there are problems there too, but it’s an interesting issue…)