Ineteresting article on science reporting

Some of you may have come across this already: it's from the Columbia
Journalism Review, and was on Slashdot today.

It's an article about journalists' treatment of science, which I found
quite interesting. Given the amount of time we (or some of us, anyway)
spend discussing science and pseudo-science maybe some of you will also
appreciate it.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

 

The journalists, or at least the reviewers, seem to be doing quite
well with Simon Singh's Big Bang - Simon explains things so lucidly
even journalists would find it difficult to get things wrong. Many
reviews of Simon Singh's Big Bang are linked to from here (bottom
left):

http://www.321books.co.uk/reviews/big-bang-simon-singh.htm

 

I've just finished "Big Bang" and, to be fair, it's very, very simplistic.

I'm not sure if it's because I'm more familiar with the subject matter than
I was with "Fermat's last theorem" or "The Code Book", but I found it a lot
less enjoyable than either of those.

I was disappointed that the book pretty much stops at the point where the BB
theory replaced the Steady State and left everything since then for the
short epilogue.

IMO it take too long to cover ground that "A Brief History" of time explains
better in less space.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Thanks for that, finally made time to read it. Picking up on a couple
of the issues..

Religious involvement in scientific issues - abortion and evolution
being the main issues. The church (American fundamentalist flavour)
has a captive and in my mind non critical thinking captive audience
every Sunday. As they are discouraged from accessing any unbiased
sources how can this lack of knowledge be dealt with? The article
discusses how journalists can report on scientific issues with greater
knowledge, but if these people never get to read those reports...

Corporate involvement - funding tends to follow where the profit is
likely to be made. Is there any truly altruistic research being
undertaken? Is there any true objectivity in a scientist who is funded
by a profit making industry?

Should all reporters have a duty to reference the religious and
monetary links of the scientists they quote?

 

So are you saying it's shite now?

 

I'm saying it's not up to the standard I expected from Singh.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Right. John's ordered it for me so I guess I read it anyway.

 

Didn't quite hit the note?

 

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:21:20 +0000, Lady Nina wrote:

This is very difficult. Not many people will read news about science if
they're not already interested in science. One needs better teaching of
science if more people are going to take an interest.

Teaching people how to assess information would be even better, but I'm
not sure how one can do this. I guess a bit of statistics, an explanation
on the scientific method, some media studies, history of ideas.

There is a difference between a company funding research because they hope
to make some money our of it, and funding scientists because they'll hold
- or at least express - views which are convenient.

I think a good reporter should know of those links; whether they're
included is then a matter for him/her and not simply a matter of ignorance.

 

"A Brief History " is good but Singh covers things that "Brief
History" missed out. I like the lack of brevity, the hundred pages on
ancient astronomy at the beginning are fascinating. Measuring the
circumference of the earth using a well, a weary slave*, the summer
solstice and a stick! Makes me want to jump on a motorbike* and motor
for a few thousand miles N->S in a straight line, with a stick, asking
people "where's the nearest well". (Look officer I'm just trying to
measure the circumference of the earth....)

* I don't have a slave...

 

I think Singh was quite clever to stop where he did. He has been
quoted as saying that books on Cosmology are out of date as soon as
they are printed. This is true if they discuss esoteric things like
the latest convolutions of string theory or dark matter. By sticking
to the standard Big Bang model he has made sure the book will,
probably, not look dated in a few months (or even years). If you are
just looking for a quick update on Big Bang then you will be
disappointed, but if you are looking for a "a less than brief" history
of cosmology then I think it's a good buy - be prepared for a hundred
pages on early Greek astronomy (which I found fascinating).