16th October recap

Thanks to everyone who came along to last night's well-attended meeting - apologies for the rather crowded room! I hope you found the discussion stimulating and interesting, and will be able to join us in a fortnight for our next seminar, when we'll probably be getting down to some more 'literary' stuff as we focus on the journalism of J.G. Crowther.

For those who couldn't attend, Katy introduced the session by drawing out several features of our featured Government report:

-Calling for a 'cultural 'sea-change' in UK science, towards 'open and positive communication with the media'
-The news/science writing relationship (the former with a quite different set of values) - e.g. the naval gun, nuclear waste
-'Science is only part of the story' - interwoven with other concerns (ethical, political, economic, consumer interets, etc.)

She then identified some possible discussion points for the rest of the session:

-Coverage of GM 1999 as context
-Shift from PUS to PEST
-How different constituencies use terms like 'science', 'society', 'values'
-Differences between print media/other media
-Historical perspectives on the Turney quote - science and news 'a poor fit'
-Historical perspectives on risk perception issue
-RAS argument - horoscopes and other 'unorthodox' material 'tends to weaken in the public mind the validity of the rational approach to problems'
-Can journalists really be 'trained' to handle science in a different way if larger forces within the media industry define their handling of stories? E.g. confrontation format and circulation competition
-What is the status/efficacy of RS, COPUS in relation to science/society?
-Tension between regulation of how facts are used/principle of free speech
-Structures of power in relation to distinction between 'the majority view' and 'quixotic minorities'
-Analogy between scientists and other professional groups, e.g. politicians, actors
-Rhetoric of war in relation to contemporary media as a problematic context for other professionals, e.g. 'take the war into the enemy's camp' (scientist turns journalist)
-Gender issues in the report

Other topics that proved fascinating points for debate included:

-Authority of science/scientists
-Processes of scientific method - how and if represented in journalism
-Scientific versus journalistic objectivity
-Images of science and scientists - both fictional and 'real-life'
-Uncertainty of scientific knowledge
-The disciplinary boundaries of science and medicine - are their journalistic traditions and conventions separate or conflated?
-Dialogue within scientific communities; between 'the public' and scientists; as a model for scientific journalism
-Science itself as a social construct and irretrievably tied to political, ethical, economic, etc. factors, versus (at least the image of) an isolated, disinterested profession which shouldn't have to answer for ethical consequences - why does this idea seem so important?
-Audience - how to respond to articles? Intended to stimulate further thought/responses? Or to accept facts? Should articles be 'dumbed up' or 'down'?
-Prescriptions for how to write science journalism - balanced voices; particular narratives; 'eloquence is no substitute for expertise'. Should there just be one model for how this is to be done?
-The pluralities of current science journalism genres, both in print and on tv, radio, and the internet (not reflected in the report)

Hopefully we'll be coming back to address some of these questions in future weeks.

P.S. The text for the New York Times report on 'OJ's Blood and the Big Bang' can be found online here (with Daniel's thanks to Peter Lipton for drawing his attention to the article): if anyone has other particularly relevant, interesting, or entertaining examples then do let me know and I'll add them to the blog.