We’ve already seen proof of concept for this strategy in popular services such as the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which has enlisted over 135 scientists and field questions from a variety of news outlets and won praise from journalists, and EurekAlert!’s “Science Sources,” a searchable online directory of public information officers from research institutions around the world.
The US committee is also sensitive to concerns about controversial areas of science and conflicts of interest. The current plan is to pursue funding from an array of charitable foundations rather than governmental or corporate entitles, and the SMC will need to develop a set of written guidelines to explain how it handles conflicting scientific opinions in areas like biotechnology. But the overriding ethos of a SMC is that the best available science and most rigorous application of the scientific method will rule.
Far from adding another layer of PR to reporters’ work routines, the idea is to help them cut through the large volume of communications they already receive. Ultimately, though, the US committee would like to hear from American journalists about what they think a SMC could do for them and how it can best establish itself as a trusted, rigorous science resource for the media.
Ron Winslow, opening statement:
This is the first I’ve heard of the idea of a Science Media Center and while the concept is intriguing, I’m not convinced it’s the way to go in the US. Apart from the potential contribution for deadline needs on breaking science stories, an SMC feels like a redundancy to me for US-based journalists.
We have a robust if eclectic group of organizations and initiatives already in place with missions to improve the quality of science journalism. The National Association of Science Writers, the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the Association of Health Care Journalists, and the Society of Environmental Journalists are among journalist-run and directed organizations that offer first-rate programs featuring professional skills development, science content seminars, or source-building opportunities, or all of the above. In addition, the HealthNewsReview blog, focused on medical/clinical science coverage, and the Tracker, a blog hosted by the Knight Science Journalism Program at MIT, are among peer-review watchdog style efforts that publish regular critiques of science stories. A variety of fellowship programs provide opportunities for professional development and background reporting on science. Some of these initiatives might be competing for funds necessary to launch and operate an SMC. Where does an ambitious organization like an SMC fit in this already well-populated if unstructured space?
Improving reporting of evidence-based science is a big driver of the formation of the SMCs in the UK and elsewhere. What is the evidence base that the ones that have been up and running for a while are achieving that goal? How would any success translate in the US?
Moreover, what is the statement of need in the US? Is our journalism filled with misinformation?
I agree with the skepticism in the Nature piece that US journalists would use canned quotes from sources provided by an SMC. One person’s “independent source” may be another’s agenda-driver. A database listing the economic conflicts of science researchers may be helpful, though other organizations already maintain such resources.
Reporters who might best be served by a deadline news/briefing service would be those in mid-to-low profile organizations where no one else knows anything about what they cover and who also may have a hard time getting calls returned from scientists in a timely manner.
Another missing feature in the science-journalism training infrastructure is help for general editors who need a better background/perspective/understanding of the scientific process why the instinct to play up the breakthrough or to demand a definitive lede on a story of a preliminary finding can lead to science stories that hype rather than inform.
There IS a need in the US for something like an SMC, at the very least to help the major source of news for most Americans, local TV news, do much better with science coverage...more coveraget, and better informed. I was a TV environment and science reporter in the 80s and 90s and have watched that frequency and quality suffer badly. TV stations would gobble this up. In fact, there would have to be great caution. They gobbled up way too gullibly the feeds of medical and health news often supplied by corporations or local hospitals. But for the medium through which more people get news than any other, an SMC could play a vital role improving science journalism. (to be continued in Helsinki!)
#1 Posted by David Ropeik, CJR on Fri 21 Jun 2013 at 04:43 PM
David makes a worthwhile point - local broadcast is the way many people get their news and in the mobile era, short video packages will increasingly dominate as a medium of delivering news. Short downloadable video commentary from a transparent, foundation-backed independent source of scientific perspective (say a minute of b-roll and 2-3 comments from an expert) would likely be an effective way to reach the public (if you can get it across to local news outlets that it is available). Those outlets will never hire science or environmental reporters, there is no advertising money for it, so this kind of resource would be better than nothing and reach many people who are often tuned out from more comprehensive sources of news.
More broadly however, I share Ron's questions about efforts to "improve" science journalism or educate the public. Any such enterprise will possess an agenda, however well-intentioned, and/or represent a diversion of effort away from real journalism. What is the goal here? How do you measure outcomes? Would we be better off with funding more research into science communication instead? Or education in news literacy?
#2 Posted by Dan Vergano, CJR on Sun 23 Jun 2013 at 02:10 PM
The "diversity of the American media" argument seems off point; US media may be large, but there's little diversity. And the suggestion that US reporters would not use canned quotes struck me as downright humorous.
#3 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Mon 24 Jun 2013 at 11:17 AM
"Far from adding another layer of PR to reporters’ work routines, the idea is to help them cut through the large volume of communications they already receive."
Curtis, it seems you're giving with this sentence, the same argument as your co-author: a lot of excellent resources are already doing exactly that ("help them cut through the volume"). So, rather than creating a new structure, why the SMC defenders do not help the structures already doing a good job?
#4 Posted by Francis Lacombe, CJR on Mon 24 Jun 2013 at 11:57 PM