Neither Freeman nor Mario Ruiz, Huffington Post’s media officer, were willing to acknowledge past mistakes at the site (“As long as the Health section has existed, we’ve always valued and put a premium on science and evidence and have never sought in any way to undermine that,” Ruiz insisted). And they don’t seem to recognize that even if the science section produces high-quality content, more shoddy work in the Healthy Living section would detract from that effort.
“The quackery is still there,” the pseudonymous blogger Orac argued in a post explaining why he remains skeptical. “[A]nd it still taints the reputation of the entire enterprise.”
If Huffington Post science is to become an important source of information and debate in the world of science journalism, it will have to address such critics head on. It can do that by ensuring that the highest standards of scientific accuracy apply to the entire site, not just one section; by hiring more science journalists; and by prioritizing incisive, original reporting over quirky slideshows and big-name essays.
Aside from posting interesting articles about interesing science topics, will Freeman's section try to carry news, however tentative science news stories may be? Examples: This week's meeting of the American Astronomical Society's exciting new Hubble exoplanets, or any week's reports in journals like Science, Nature, etc.
#1 Posted by David Perlman, CJR on Fri 13 Jan 2012 at 02:53 PM
I don't think journalism reviews include attacking a press for daring to write about topics you don't approve of. I do note that you object to their 'columns' -- which to me means opinion pieces, not science journalism. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but that's even worse. I'm afraid journalism review doesn't cover objecting the publishing of certain opinions in clearly delineated opinion pieces.
In applauding Freeman for running 'good columns by Peter Gleick, Chris Mooney, Shawn Lawrence Otto, and Jamil Zaki criticizing Republicans for taking 'anti-science' positions.' , you are again judging the press by it's opinion columns -- not its journalistic approach.
I am mightily glad that you are not yourself the editor of a newspaper: we wouldn't have journalism, we'd have a political broadsheet.
#2 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sun 29 Jan 2012 at 06:45 PM