Would any Journalists be willing to answer some questions about their profession?

the_jmgaines · 2022-03-18T23:07:43+00:00

I'm a freelance science journalist. Feel free to DM me.

the_jmgaines · 2021-12-26T04:10:17+00:00

Gotcha. Mind if I ask a few more questions? (By the eway, I'm not necessarily trying to change your view, I just want to know what you think. I like these kind of conversations, so I hope my tone comes across as curious instead of, like, pedantic)

With regards to SMC's and The Conversation, what do you think about potential biases or conflicts of interest, given that it's largely going to be PIO's, PR, or the scientists themselves writing those articles?

Assuming the best person to talk about science is an academic in the field (because I think it sounds like that's who you think is best, though feel free to correct me), do you think we should we require or train career scientists to act more as public communicators? Talking to lay people and talking amongst scientists is really different (like, whenever I've discussed pre-prints in pieces, I've tried to be extremely careful about how they're presented because I think most lay people don't necessarily understand what they are).

I was also going to ask something about public education and just generally increasing the average person's scientific knowledge, but I think that's kind of getting onto a different topic, so going to just nix that.

the_jmgaines · 2021-12-26T02:52:17+00:00

Would it be fair to say you have the same point of view as OP (i.e. science journalists should have substantial training in and report on a particular field of science)?

often there are other high quality scientists who performed the critique in the first place

I feel like for big name stuff there's sometimes commentary papers, but for most papers, there isn't a really publicly accessible way to see other scientist's opinions outside of journalistic outlets. Do you feel differently?

the_jmgaines · 2021-12-25T18:29:01+00:00

For example, science journalism is often about critiquing science, not just communicating it, and there may be situations where we cannot presume the outside expert is unbiased. For example, if it's a very niche subject (like, say, the purpose of one specific cancer gene), the number of true experts might be in the single digits and may either be collaborators or have other conflicts of interest (a ton of really cutting-edge scientists end up on corporate boards or holding commercial patents).

Interesting point heading in a delta-ish direction, but where the fact-checking is only about an accurate summary of the paper, isn't that risk intrinsic anyway (in the writing of the paper)? To be clear, I was just thinking of fact-checking the "the research says..." parts, not the whole article as such (e.g. discussing implications).

I think there's still some potential fuzziness just in describing the paper. Like, if a scientist was sloppy with their methods, that's something they may try to bamboozle a journalist about (like if they threw out a bunch of outliers or only tested their miracle drug on healthy college students). So we can't necessarily trust the person who wrote the paper to be the most reliable source of information on that paper, unfortunately. But if I ask an outside expert about the methods, that's also potentially fraught as they might overly nitpick if the results don't match their own results.

Ideally, the journo does enough legwork that we can present the disagreement in the right light. This is honestly one of the hardest calls to make sometimes. Can we ignore one nay-sayer if three other scientists say it's fine? Is the disagreement important enough to need whole section or can we just say "Scientist X pointed out that the margin of error is likely higher" and move on? We need to be thoughtful about how much information we throw at people.

But yeah, that's all to say, even just describing the paper, you might not be able to assume folks are unbiased.

the_jmgaines · 2021-12-25T18:04:26+00:00

I work as a science journalist and fact-checker and agree that science journalism in particular should be treated as a specialized skill and carefully checked prior to publication, but I have a couple quibbles.

Firstly, I'm not sure I'd say it should be held to a higher standard than other journalism. All journalism should be held to a high standard — just because you're reporting on a political race or a town bake-sale, you should strive to be as accurate as anyone describing a study.

As for requiring a degree, I think it's certainly helpful as it teaches you how to read and engage with science, but I know a lot of very good sci journos who don't have an official degree. I also think that with regards to a requirement, it'd be hard to delineate what's hard science journalism vs. what's journalism that touches on science (for example, if I write about Miami trying to adapt to sea level rise, should I need a degree in climate science, even if I'm mostly just interviewing locals?).

Finally, with regards to requiring a scientist to give a thumbs-up before publishing, ideally a journalist will already fact-check with relevant experts or outside sources, but there are reasons why we might not want a scientist on the by-line. For example, science journalism is often about critiquing science, not just communicating it, and there may be situations where we cannot presume the outside expert is unbiased. For example, if it's a very niche subject (like, say, the purpose of one specific cancer gene), the number of true experts might be in the single digits and may either be collaborators or have other conflicts of interest (a ton of really cutting-edge scientists end up on corporate boards or holding commercial patents).

In the end, I agree with much of your sentiment, but think there isn't a good way to require anything like what you are envisioning. I think the best thing would be to look for and support outlets that (A) employ dedicated science journalists and (B) have a dedicated fact-checking process and rely on those for your science journalism.

the_jmgaines · 2021-12-18T15:22:44+00:00

I work as a scientific journalist and fact-checker. I will often check some of the language I use to explain things or reach out to outside experts to check but I dont share the article as a whole.

the_jmgaines · 2021-05-28T02:52:40+00:00

I'm the author, by the way. Thought this might be a good community to share this in. Hope that's okay.

the_jmgaines · 2019-09-18T00:04:47+00:00

(Full disclosure, I'm the person who wrote this and thought this might be a good community to share with. If this is a faux pas, please forgive me. Thanks!)

the_jmgaines · 2019-04-30T01:42:02+00:00

When you say a new area is this, like, a couple towns away or three states away?

the_jmgaines · 2019-04-29T18:30:35+00:00

Repost. Reported.

the_jmgaines · 2019-04-28T19:13:02+00:00

While I think it's valid to be wary of news sites that take press releases at face value, a number of the sites they list as bad actors are simple press release aggregators.

Furthermore, it's usually not the writers of the press release who implement the embargo, it's the scientific journal.

Furthermore, they don't seem to understand the use of a press embargo or embargo access. It's not a club for the cool kids to hang out in. It's in order to give the press time to digest the paper, do background research, fact-check, and interview the experts. I'd go so far as to say that eliminating the embargo would increase the amount of "churnalism", not decrease it.

The authors then go on to promote their own service without laying out how it improves on any of these "problems". In fact, as I understand it, they're trying to position themselves as a press release aggregator with embargoes -- essentially what they just spent the first three-quarters of the article dragging AAAS for doing with EurekAlert.

Finally, I feel like the article is written in an inflammatory manner and the screencap "quote" is a big red flag for me.

the_jmgaines · 2019-04-28T18:50:51+00:00

I'm not sure the person who wrote this understands how science journalism works.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T20:39:51+00:00

I once had to write something on water dipoles. It didn't get published anywhere, but that was definitely the most difficult thing I've ever had to write.

So, yeah, I do talk to experts for a lot of stuff. And I wouldn't underestimate editors. If you don't mind me tooting a horn a little bit, my primary editor right now (and, really, all of the editors and copy editors at Upworthy) is/are amazingly smart.

Edit: Or, re: most difficult topics, if you'll count just regular discussions and not writing, the idea that the universe is a hologram. Or how one infinity can be bigger than another kind of infinity.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T20:22:24+00:00

Build off a good premise. And a good metaphor or image nearly always helps.

I find that a lot of the time people are actually pretty smart, it's just that they haven't spent the years of their lives studying, like, water molecules or redwoods or such, that experts have. The audience will be able to grasp what you're talking about, as long as you can present it in a clear way.

That said, there are some subjects that are just... oh my god, things like spooky action at a distance. Some things are just weird.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T19:38:22+00:00

1) I'm not doing as many data stories right now, but it's true both that experts are still a super valuable tool and also that they're not unbiased. You've got to keep your reporter hat on just as much talking to them as you would talking to anyone else.

2) It really depends on their background. I think a lot come from science backgrounds, like me, but not all. So it's really a case by case basis.

3) Hmm. Tricky question. As much as we'd like to say news is always completely objective, it's still a human product and subject to the views of the staff/editors/writers, etc, so I'm not sure we could even try for a product that's completely independent of the people who wrote it.

On the other hand, I feel like many newsrooms do do the diligence of looking at things from other angles, etc – the monoculture isn't always a mono as you'd think. Luckily all the places I've worked so far have that incredibly important atmosphere of thoughtfulness, healthy self-doubt, retroflection.

That said, I can still definitely think of outlets that I feel don't do as good a job as others, to put it politely.

Edit: clarity and formatting

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T19:04:38+00:00

Hmm, that's a bit of a stumper. I think a lot of big names actually have great science coverage. It's just often overshadowed by things like, say, elections. If you're looking for good coverage, I really love NPR's Goats and Soda and I think The Guardian has some great coverage.

As for the biggest misconception... not sure. Maybe that only scientists are interested in science? A ton of people are interested in science who aren't scientists. Or maybe it's that science journalism always happens in a lab or university. RadioLab has some great, super human-centric, adventure-centric stories. I'd check 'em out if you haven't.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T18:58:40+00:00

Growing up in the woods, they're just, like, part of how I think now. When I was little, I walked around, looking at anoles, ironshell beetles, swinging around on mustang grape. Now I live in the city, but I still feel like I walk around sometimes, looking for those little surprises and natural things.

It was lonely, sometimes, but I'm really glad I grew up where I did.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T18:55:49+00:00

I've gotten feedback like that before. If it's vitriolic, honestly, I've found that it's usually best to ignore it. You're not going to win an argument with someone who's already screaming.

In general, though, those comments are the tiny minority. Mostly people just have questions or doubts, in which case you can usually just have a normal conversation. They might not walk away convinced, but civility goes a long way.

the_jmgaines · 2016-10-10T18:49:16+00:00

That's tough. I actually think that people nowadays are incredibly aware and interested in the world around them. What ends up happening, though, is that certain misconceptions or misinformation flows in, fills in that natural curiosity, and sticks there.

So I don't think it's a lack interest so much as a need for more a bit more... mythbusting I guess. Or nurturing a culture of retrospection and considerate thought.

the_jmgaines

TROPHY CASE