For the wake at Donovan’s pub, Gil had his library dig out the paper’s first science section, called “Sci-Tech” when it started on April 4, 1983, which included a “medical frontiers” story on in vitro fertilization and a technology feature on “compact new digital records (that) will last longer, sound better.” It was modeled on the successful Tuesday Science Times section in The New York Times, which many still view as the gold standard for science, health and environmental coverage.
The 1980’s were the heyday of newspaper science sections and science magazines, with high but short-lived hopes built on advertising from computer companies. Ninety-five newspapers boasted weekly science sections in 1989, according to a survey at the time, but the number has been dropping ever since. A paper I prepared as a Harvard Shorenstein Center journalism fellow found only about thirty-four such sections in 2005—two-thirds of them focused primarily on consumer health—and many have shrunk dramatically in size or moved inside. Ironically, in another big science town, the Baltimore Sun started a brand-new science section in 2005, only to fold it two-and-a-half years later as the Tribune-owned paper’s fortunes fell.
Gil said thus far he has not heard much in the way of protests about the Globe’s decision to drop the Health/Science section: “I had written a script for the telephone operators, but nobody called. Either they were snowed in and couldn’t get the paper, or we communicated effectively through the editors’ notes in the paper.” There was more reaction, he noted, when the longtime section front moved inside the A section last spring.
Correction: This article was changed to reflect that the Globe intends to cut fifty newsroom jobs, not fifty reporters.
- 1
- 2





It's not 50 reporters they're cutting, it's 50 people in editorial, which includes a sea of copy editors and editors and many departments, news,sports,photo,design, etc. Did they teach you about getting the story right as a Harvard Shorenstein Center journalism fellow?
Posted by ella on Wed 4 Mar 2009 at 11:44 PM
I don't see how this unfortunate change will save money, if the Globe's staffing isn't reduced, and the author didn't bother to tell us how.
Posted by balance collector on Fri 6 Mar 2009 at 08:27 PM
Biff, Bam Pow.
Who'll read the Globe now?
The oldsters avoid
The trendy Tabloid,
Yet they are the tribe
That to papers subscribe.
Biff, Bam, Pow
Who needs it anyhow.
Posted by Omen on Mon 9 Mar 2009 at 01:02 PM
Science becomes a victim of MSM PC. And has been pretty PC itself for quite a while. Nobody ever is allowed to criticize the HIV theory of AIDS, without being called an "AIDS Denier" -- as if to think HIV might not be the cause is to deny that the disease itself does not exist, and also to be compared to Holocaust deniers, all in one nasty smear. "Scientists" also participated in that PC hate-smearing. They do the same, both "scientists" and "science journalists" when attacking people who are critical of the CO2 theory of global warming. They are called "Climate Deniers".... again, to deliberately smear people, as if to say you don't think CO2 is the cause, that the climate also is not variable. And again, the comparison to the neo-Nazis. So I say, HORRAY that another radical left-wing newspaper has to cut back on its "science" section. It is really no more than a mouthpiece for Big Pharmacy, and now for those who would use the CO2 theory to push for a socialistic One World Government. And by the way, has anybody noticed that we are clearly now in a cold-wet phase of climate, with no more warming going on for maybe 8 years? I don't even think that the Obama people really believe in GW anymore. It is just a dandy excuse to push for socialist destruction of American society.
Posted by Black Eagle on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 04:16 PM