At the conference
I'm having quite a good time at this science journalism conference. It's interesting hearing how science gets reported online. That's the new direction: web.
But does it dumb down science? There's been opinions that it does and there have been opinions that it gives access to those who are not hard-core science fans through various tools such as games, blogs, video presentations.
I keep writing on all the presentations and debates. You must read my posts and do comment on what you think. Future Directions in Science Journalism.
Now we are schmoozing in a lounge and I'm sticking around for free dinner and an awards ceremony. There's still more to come.
But does it dumb down science? There's been opinions that it does and there have been opinions that it gives access to those who are not hard-core science fans through various tools such as games, blogs, video presentations.
I keep writing on all the presentations and debates. You must read my posts and do comment on what you think. Future Directions in Science Journalism.
Now we are schmoozing in a lounge and I'm sticking around for free dinner and an awards ceremony. There's still more to come.
posted by Anna Kat at 5:06 PM
1 Comments:
I think any media form of science is going to dumb it down to some extent, but that's not always bad. To take the main findings and present them in a way that anyone can understand is fine, but sometimes it goes a lot further than that... I am not sure that the internet VS printed material has much to do with that except maybe the competance of the people doing the writing, but you never know. Here are 3 problems I've found:
1) Perception of science: people view science as a sort of religion. Science isn't a mass of facts that people believe in. It's a method to look for facts. People do not all agree with each other in the scientific world. There are very few "laws" for that reason, and these are really basic things such as gravity. People need to understand that all scientific discoveries are open for debate within the scientific community and can also be within public discussion without having to resort to crazy religious alternatives. Usually, for any miniscule finding, there are people who disagree and eventually one side is accepted as more plausible.
2) Skewing of facts: This relates to the above point, because often scientific findings are presented as truths instead of just information that supports a possible truth. Ie "scientists prove that..." kind of statements is presenting false information to the public and makes me think that the author must have no clue what science is all about.
3) Missing underlying information: Often articles don't present what researchers actually did because it's perceived as too complicated. However, it's important that this is presented in at least a general way. For example, if someone supposedly found some new potential cure for cancer, the question is, what's new about it? What has this researcher done that makes him special? I think the people who read past the first few paragraphs in an article about science aren't going to be phased if you tell them some basic information about what cancer cells do and what the traditional approach to trying to kill them would be and how this one is different. I mean, you can't get really technical, but you can usually avoid using jargon and get to the point of what's going on... I mean, that's what I do when I tell my grandmother in German, I don't even have jargon in German to tell her with!
That's my 2 cents, are you happy?! Hehe.
Post a Comment
<< Home