Changes and opportunities in science journalism

More than 800 professionals participated in the World Conference of Science Journalists in Helsinki, Finland.

By Jussara Mangini, Helsinki

Agência FAPESP – The web has become an important professional channel for journalists who write about science. Blogs and specialized sites have the advantages of regaining some of the editorial space that has been lost in print media and TV around the globe and broadening job opportunities, in addition to allowing for capital injections that do not compromise editorial independence or integrity.

The internet is, however, a platform that requires multimedia technical abilities, creativity in producing content and new logic for relating with the public.

These new opportunities and the characteristics of this new way of disseminating scientific findings were among the varied topics discussed at the 8^th World Conference of Science Journalists held June 24–28, 2013 at the University of Helsinki in Finland.

It became clear during the encounter that the old image of bloggers as amateur writers is disappearing because of the emergence of networks of professional blogs. In no other area is this more evident than in science writing, where bloggers are among the world’s best communicators on science.

This is explained by the significant number of experienced professionals with renowned reputations and credibility whose blogs on science and related areas amass large audiences and high levels of interaction – some of which is financed through donations.

The conference highlighted examples of watchdog bloggers who monitor information and stories published by the press, advertisers and public and private institutions.

That is the case of Science-ish, hosted on the site of Maclean magazine, Canada’s only weekly current affairs magazine. Science-ish is a health blog based on scientific evidence that verifies the most current health news and highlights false or misleading public statements about health matters while promoting well-informed public statements on the subject.

To conduct her analyses, Julia Belluz, the journalist responsible for the blog, uses a database on health research managed by the McMaster Health Forum and the Cochrane Library, a database of research evidence for healthcare decisions that has a Brazilian version hosted under the Virtual Health Library (Bireme).

Julia Belluz was the moderator of the session entitled “Misuse them and abuse them: fighting for facts in science”, which included speakers such as Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-prize-winning author of five books on science fiction. Blum is also a member of Knight Science Journalism at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where she is responsible for the Tracker website, which provides critical analysis of news on journalism, in addition to writing for several vehicles.

Other participants in the session included Gary Schwitzer, who is responsible for the website HealthNewsReview, which evaluates messages about health that can influence consumers in journalism, advertising and public relations. HealthNewsReview.org is funded by the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, which, according to Schwitzer, does not have any influence of the editorial side of the website.

A similar initiative is ProPublica, a nonprofit, independent news organization created by Paul Steiger, a former editor-in-chief at The Wall Street Journal. The entity, funded with resources from the Sandler Foundation and other donations, is now headed by Stephen Engelberg, a former editor at The New York Times, and by Richard Tofel, a former assistant editor at The Wall Street Journal.

Based in Manhattan, ProPublica’s newsroom is staffed by 40 journalists dedicated to investigative reporting on stories with potentially major impact. The reporters uncover the unsavory practices of government entities, companies, hospitals, unions, universities and media, seeking to stimulate positive change.

Although investigative journalism has taken a back seat in many traditional newsrooms in these difficult economic times, ProPublica offers the stories it investigates free of charge to traditional new organizations. In 2012, 80 of these “deep dive” stories were published by 25 partners. The site received Pulitzer Prizes in 2010 and 2011 in Investigative Journalism and National Reporting, respectively. In 2013, the group received the Peabody Prize, granted by the Henry W. Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia.

How to be a killer science journalist

ProPublica was represented by science journalist and designer Lena Groeger in the session entitled the “The ‘killer’ science journalists of the future.”

The session was organized by Bora Zivkovic, a veterinarian who edits the blogs of Scientific American and is a co-founder and director of ScienceOnline, a virtual community that brings together specialists that conduct scientific research and disseminate scientific findings, i.e., researchers, science writers, artists, programmers and educators. The blog’s objective is to improve scientific communication in the scientific community, with the general public and with politicians. ScienceOnline is also a nonprofit organization.

During the year that preceded the conference in Helsinki, Zivkovic stimulated debate among science producers and communicators with the following questions: “Is specialization necessary?”, “What does a new science journalist need to do to be noticed?”, “How should a science journalist address breaking news?”, and “What are the characteristics of a good science journalist of the future?”

Based on personal impressions and comments from his readership, Zivkovic believes that the major difference in being a new journalist trying to break into the field today versus in the past is that one must have many different abilities or at least be capable of conducting projects in many different media.

As the number of freelancers and people without regular contact with other colleagues grows, there will be a tendency to form networks of people interested in science communication – not only in journalism – that favors more collaborative actions and partnerships.

Still, in order for newbies to discover their passions, the editor suggests that they experiment with new ways of explaining science through such means as fairy tales, science fiction, poems and comic books. Photography, comic strips and infographics can also help to tell stories.

Hyperlink as currency of reliability

Zivkovic affirms the reality that although traditional media pays better, these media are losing their audience because the new generation essentially uses the web to seek information, education, entertainment and interaction. Trust and reputation are the currencies of the new ecosystem of communication.

In the online world, the currency of reliability is the hyperlink. In the same way that the scientific community cites its peers in scientific articles, online text should make connections to cited documents and references. A citation that lacks a link is automatically a red flag for a modern reader. Each missing link is a loss of trustworthiness. Even if most readers do not have the time to open all of the links, they are proof that the author employed due diligence in researching the facts and relevant sources.

To address the most daunting characteristics for those reluctant to use new media – because it is an open system, it provides instant and sometimes devastating feedback – the editor recommends addressing criticism with the utmost transparency, being humble in admitting errors and correcting incorrect information, if applicable. Responding to feedback by involving one’s readership in the clarification or learning process is the best way to gain trust and build a reputation.

For the debate, Zivkovic invited four web professionals from the United States: the roundtable moderator, Rose Eveleth, a producer, designer, animator and writer with several projects for the web that can be seen at http://www.roseveleth.com/; Kathleen Raven of Science Tomorrow; Erin Podolak, from the communication team at the Dona-Farber Cancer Institute, who contributes to the blog Science Decoded; and Lena Groeger of ProPublica. The impact of this session on Twitter can be seen using the hashtag #sci4 hels.

Good investigative journalism

The European Union of Science Journalists’ Associations (EUSJA) sponsored the workshop “Blood infusion for staggering science journalism” to discuss best practices in the profession regardless of the media or the platform.

“It is important to dig deeper into the data on the material received, forage for contradictions, cultivate relationships with the research community, not trust a single source, always have a second opinion, listen attentively to what is said and how the source said it, be patient and prepared for months of investigation and be ready for conflict when accusing people,” affirmed Fabio Turone, a member of EUSJA’s board, during the workshop.

Another invited panelist was Dutch journalist Hans van Maanen, who recommended caution with another source of misinformation: false or untrustworthy statistics. He instructed the audience to ask sources to show absolute numbers and never accept percentages. “A 10% increase could seem like a lot, but if it is just three people, forget it, it is just noise,” explains Maanen, who teaches an online course for those interested in understanding statistics better.

These and other courses on science journalism are offered by the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) in partnership with SciDev.Net on the website http://www.wfsj.org/course/index-e.html.

The conference in Finland brought together more than 800 journalists from 80 countries. The next meeting will be in Seoul, South Korea in 2015.