All:
It's unfortunate that generic remarks about a sub-category are sometimes
interpreted as applying to the entire category. Science writers and other
reporters sometimes get it right most of the time, some rarely do, and there
is a whole sliding scale in between. No generalization is ever true about an
entire category (yes, there are exceptions to this--ironically), but there
is at least a grain of truth behind most generalizations.
I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories
with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing
error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in
silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an
obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where
it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter
explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot
repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the
point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with
Dave's point, but it's not my point.
Editors (newspapers, anyway) will simply chop off the end of a piece, so
reporters used to put the conclusions in the first paragraph. That's just
good writing anyway, and fairly easy once one gets used to it. Then the last
paragraph has pretty much the same content as the first. That helps to
cement the point in the reader's mind.
Finally, we may have to riot in the streets just to get the attention of the
"infotainment" clucks, or just drum them out of business by showing them up.
But most people, especially scientists, are just too busy writing grant
proposals to do science, much less #*!k with reporters. If they write the
stuff themselves it looks bad on their CV, and the academic bureaucrats will
block their grants and tenure, reviewers will trash them, and the
survivorship curve will cull them out. It's unnatural selection, man!
And oh, yes; the public really believes the stuff the clucks put out. My
unscientific straw poll indicated more and more believers in space aliens,
bigfoots, and Martian earth sculptors than there ever were in the benighted
past--even, I suspect (but cannot prove) in the Dark Ages. Enlightenment,
anyone? Well, CLARITY at least . . .
WT
Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a whole man.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces
with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons
accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the
same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose
word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their
approval of a story I wrote involving them first.
Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard
at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running
quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of
a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why --
it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists --
how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least)
role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to
our sources for approval? We cannot.
I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such
clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my
statement.
There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist
reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from
their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to
support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether.
The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or
less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the
material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are
allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity"
targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for
things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other
people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time
available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting
thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed
stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline).
And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries" where
I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a
scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself
seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not
"journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer
better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such
programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know
what to say.
Dave
On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get
it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were
CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in
presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could
be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would
clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ...
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
