What is the role of science journalism in the 21st century?
Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting, facts, numbers and being right. Journalism values brevity, approximation, the personal, the colloquial, the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be tensions. - Quentin Cooper, of BBC Radio 4’s Material World.
When the science communicator and chief editor of Scientific American Bora Zivkovic tweeted his regarding the difference between journalists and educators, the great discussion was on Twitter about the way journalists strenuously deny they have an education role but reporting, while everyone else believes them as essential pieces of the educational ecosystem in modern society, it’s the time for us to think what actually does science journalism provide us?
In the 21st century, the mass media becomes the most influential medium that communicates to large numbers of individuals: newspapers, TVs, books and the ever-expanding Internet are the prime sources. The instant thoughts of the term Science Journalism are the academic magazine NewScientist and the global set of conferences owned by a nonprofit Sapling Foundation called TED with the spirit of “Ideas worth spreading”. Nowadays, science becomes a public focus, with the help of science journalism.
The history of science journalism in Britain can be tracked back to the late nineteenth century. The most significant person in history is James Gerald Crowther. Crowther went to Cambridge to read mathematics and physics but soon he dropped out. In 1924 he obtained a position as a representative of Oxford University Press specializing in science publications. In 1928, Crowther wrote to the editor of Manchester Guardian suggested ‘The public should be helped to realize the greatness of science, and its significant for society and the mind.’ Soon Crowther was taken on as the ‘official Scientific Correspondent’. With the advantage of Crowther’s background, Manchester Guardian achieved great success. Crowther’s great contribution spreads a spirit of scientific optimism and a desire of ‘public science’. Since then, science became a fundamental part of people’s daily life, it appeared almost everywhere.
The science journalists are now operating a new “ science- media ecosystem” where scientists and scientific publishers are now providing original discoveries directly for the general public instead of going through the official publishing process which contains complex professional language such as Latinate. It seems to be good for the general public and works quite well recently, but in fact, the consequence is the science itself gets left out, and the story is shaped. So the relationship between journalists and scientists will be a tough one. The situation is the knowledge only has value when it is shared. Scientists could spend 10 years on this new vaccination, but once the story is published, the 300 words article with a bold-capital heading will never show the extremely hard work beyond that. Of course there are differences between public science and laboratory science, public audiences tend to be more diverse, short, simply worded paragraphs are suggested. The main difference between stories written by science journalists and papers written by scientists is stories are articles only give a big picture, but papers are official publications and addressed to the contributors. There is misunderstanding of how this process should work, at certain case; even experienced journalists can’t control their stores as it goes outside the “realm” of the science section. At the same time, scientists and researchers are now realize that how important press is for their research, their careers or the society.
This pressure of communication still not yet completely advanced. A lot of attention has been given to the fact that science journalism is inaccurate at the point of view of scientists, who assumed journalists simply transcribe what they said. The view is science journalism has a social responsibility as journalist has a role to inform and educate the public as both scientists and the public expect. Science journalists have a professional role but in the end they tend to obstruct rather than becoming a communication bridge between scientists and the public. Thankfully the popular science TV program MythBusters by Discovery Channel is rebuilding this system by duplicating scientific myth heard by people and the Internet rumor, thus, telling the right answer and educating the public. Besides that, publishers of science, such as BMJ, NewScientist, are now providing open access articles online to facilitate sharing knowledge between professionals and non-specialists.
Science journalists are defined as educators while journalism is one of the most important specializations in mass media, clearly that science journalism is very important in modern life. Therefore, science journalism must understand the widest social consequences it may provoke as it informs society. It also should be obvious to the majority of the public; science journalism should not only according to the rule of science, but also according to the pattern of journalism, it is personal orientation.
