International School of Scientific Journalism and Communication
Ettore Majorana
Erice, Sicily
July 6, 2009
James Cornell
President
International Science Writers Association
The text of a paper--"The Rise and Fall...and Possible Rise Again...of Science Journalism"--presented by ISWA President Cornell at the First International School of Scientific Journalism and Communication ( Communicating Energy) held at the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Center for Scientific Culture, in Erice, Sicily, Italy, July 6-9, 2009. ISWA member Barbara Gallavotti was one of the organizers and directors of the course.
I would like to thank the school's organizers, Barbara Gallavotti and Enzo Iarocci, for inviting me here today. I am most pleased to be in Erice-at last.
In another life, I worked for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and many of my scientific colleagues attended the conferences here on cosmology and high-energy physics. I was very envious of their good fortune.
Then, in 1999, a group of science journalists were also invited here as a satellite meeting of a larger conference and with the intention of creating a new world union of science journalism organizations. Although I was invited to attend, I was unable to do so and I like to think that, in my absence, no decisions could be made.
In truth, however, even without me--or, maybe because I wasn't here!--that small gathering provided the impetus needed to begin a process that would create the World Federation of Science Journalists, which met at the international conference in London last week.
So, the Ettore Majorana played a seminal role in the globalization of science journalism. This school--the first on science communication at the center-will help advance that process.
Not surprisingly, an overarching theme of the London conference was the challenging and somewhat uncertain future of our trade-the topic of my presentation today.
Despite the international nature of that meeting-and that of this special school on communication and energy-I will be discussing trends and developments drawn mainly from the United States, where the situation is so troubling that I thought I might declare personal bankruptcy in hope that Fiat or some other Italian firm might adopt me.
Obviously, while it is much easier for me to gather information in my own country,
there is ample evidence that similar problematic trends are being seen globally. The implications --and impact-- may be most serious in the developing world, where mass media coverage of science and technology is an essential part of the process that modernizes society, disseminates culture, and advances the economy.
Also, I should note that the technology of communication is changing so rapidly and so unpredictably that any prognostication about "obvious and certain" trends is foolhardy. One point is clear: the current transitional state of the mass media offers excellent opportunities for journalists, scientists, and public interest advocates to create effective new communications approaches for the future.
----------------------------------
But let me start in the past-with some both personal and professional history�.
Growing up in a small town on the US-Canadian border in the early 1950s, back when home televisions were still rare, and weekly news magazines, such as the now defunct "Collier's," provided our windows on the world.
I particularly liked "Collier's," with its eclectic mix of fact and fiction, muck-raking journalism and self-improvement advice. And nothing excited me as much as "Collier's" science and nature stories, especially an unusual series about the coming exploration of space.
Like many young boys, then and now, I was turned on by science fiction. But, here, in a half-dozen lavishly illustrated installments, beginning in March 1952, were visions of the future based on fact--visions that included orbiting space stations, astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon, and missions to the planet Mars. More exciting, the authors of this series -called "Man Will Conquer Space Soon"--were the very experts who were working to make these dreams come true.
Although the names were new to me then, almost a decade before the dawn of the Space Age, rocket experts Willy Ley and Wernher von Braun and astronomer Fred Whipple were so confident in their visions that they made me confident, too.
The 1957 launch of Sputnik I may have shocked the world, but it was no surprise to me. Nor was I surprised to learn that Whipple, von Braun, and the others I had met indirectly through this series were now leading the US space efforts.
Now, fast forward to the late 1960s, when I was a young journalist, temporarily writing advertising copy to support a new family. One day I got a call from a former editor who asked if I'd "like to write about the stars, moon, and planets for the Smithsonian?"
I certainly would have taken the job as an Information Specialist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under any circumstances; but, what really cinched my decision was the fact that the director was none other than Fred Whipple, the same astronomer-visionary of my impressionable youth.
In fact, once at the observatory and able to rummage through its files, I found reprints of the old "Collier's" article --as well as the original 8x10 black-and-white glossy photo of Dr. Whipple that had accompanied it.
My "Collier's connection" has still another twist. Because the Smithsonian operated a global satellite tracking network, I became involved in international affairs--preparing news material for foreign distribution and, more often, helping overseas journalists gain access to American space experts. One of those foreign journalists--not that he needed any help from me--was the late Arthur C. Clarke.
Sir Arthur was also a founding member of an organization called the "International Science Writers Association." Naturally, I joined his group--and, here I am today, addressing you as its current President.
My story demonstrates, I hope, the remarkable power of science journalism to inform, to educate, and, sometimes, to inspire. Of course, in my case, it was pure serendipity. A chance encounter with a series of articles in my youth led, indirectly but surely, to my later career. Imagine all the other young men and women who stumbled on those same articles by chance and then went on to become space scientists and engineers, or to pursue careers in other fields of science and technology.
In fact, several space historians have noted how much influence this particular series had on US space policy, and especially the decisions to go to the Moon and to build the International Space Station.
The question is: Could it happen today? Is this same serendipitous discovery of the wonders of the physical world and the promise of a limitless future possible for an impressionable youth?
Unfortunately, I don't think so. Or, at least, not in quite the same way.
Three decades ago, science was the hottest topic in American media. By the late 1970s, scores of daily newspapers were publishing special stand-alone science-technology sections and popular science magazines proliferated. Indeed, there were so many periodicals devoted to science and technology that The New Yorker ran a classic cartoon showing a typical Manhattan street-corner newsstand, one side of its facade festooned with soft-porn pin-up magazines and the other draped with an equal number of science journals.
Alas, today, almost every major daily newspaper-with the notable exception of The New York Times-has dropped its special science section. And most of those once fat and profitable magazines are defunct-or have morphed into Web-based digital versions.
In fact, the forms and functions of mass media have changed so dramatically in just the past decade that the old ways of accessing and assimilating science news and information have been transformed completely.
The American comic strip "Pickles" recently offered a sardonic look at
the new media, when an older woman says to her younger companion, "My
generation produced serious journalists writing and reporting on serious news for
newspapers, TV, and radio�Your generation has bloggers blogging, googlers
googling, and twitterers tweeting� Those aren't serious journalists," she
says. "Those are sound effects!"
Obviously, science journalism faces a crisis--and a challenge: How to find an audience for serious, thoughtful reportage about difficult technical subjects and complex issues in an era of superficial, sensational, celebrity-based journalism, where economic and cultural forces are killing traditional media, and long-form reportage has been replaced by 140-character-long banalities.
Ironically, most indicators suggest that public interest in science and technology, as well as the appreciation of its central role in modern society, remains high, especially in the industrialized world. For example, last year , the US National Science Foundation, or NSF, which conducts bi-yearly surveys of public attitudes toward science and technology, found that "nearly 85 percent of Americans had at least some interest in new scientific discoveries."
Even more positive was the finding that most Americans have highly favorable attitudes toward science and technology, with nearly half agreeing that the benefits of research far outweigh any harmful effects. An even greater number-some 87 percent--believe the Federal government should continue to support basic research, even if it has no immediate benefits. And most Americans express high confidence in the scientific community---something that can't be said about their attitudes toward the press.
At the very least, these "positive attitudes" suggest there should be a large and receptive audience for science and technology news in the mainstream media, especially given the Obama administration's new emphasis on science-based issues, such as stem cell research, renewable energy, and green technologies. Alas, it is hard to find evidence for this is happening-science just isn't in the mainstream American media's news budget.
A decade ago, even before the precipitous decline of mass media science coverage began, the National Science Foundation and others warned that "the science community and the news media [were] missing opportunities to communicate with each [other] -- and [with] the public." (NSF, 2000)
An independent study group attributed the disconnect between science and press has caused by 1) scientists' inherent distrust of the media, 2) a perceived lack of public interest in science on the part of editors who didn't read their own
audience surveys, and 3) cultural differences between the "communications style" or "language" of scientists and that of journalists. (Hartz and Chappell, 1997)
Certainly, these factors hinder the effective communication of science to the public-and have done so for a half-century or more. But, unfortunately, some other, more immediate and more prosaic forces are at work today, forces that may prove even more deleterious to science journalism's future.
The first is the imminent collapse and possible disappearance of large metropolitan daily newspapers and national news magazines, the very core of American traditional media. When traditional news media first began to show signs of falling circulation and declining advertising revenues five years ago, the initial reponse of many news executives was to adopt a style of journalism that blurred the line between news and entertainment. It was a desperate attempt to reach audiences already lost.
This "market-based journalism" was shaped by three major factors: electronic technology, which removes the human element from newsgathering even as it makes the process easier and faster; globalization, which rewards the creation of simplified -- one might even say simple-minded--media products, such as celebrity stories, music videos, and disaster films, that can easily cross cultural and language borders with little or no translation; and, corporate conglomeration, which turns once independent news units into small cost-centers within larger, and largely non-news-based, commercial empires. In the US, for example, ABC is owned by the Disney Corporation, NBC by General Electric.
Again, while these examples are American, the trends are global. If I ask members of the International Science Writers Association what is happening in their home countries, I get the same story-especially from European. As one German journalist told me: "The amount of science coverage has increased over the past two decades in Germany...[but, in general] the coverage has increased at the expense of quality...[there is] more sensation, more superficiality...and that applies to print media as well as to the electronic media..." (Goepfert, 2001)
The situation is a bit brighter in the developing world, as we learned in London last week. While that could be a fascinating presentation in itself, let me just note briefly that, in emerging economies, where literacy and affluence are rising rapidly, mass market media play very important social roles, promoting individual status and national progress simultaneously.
In the USA, however, the continued downward spiral of the economy--and the resultant declines in advertising revenues--put additional pressure on mass media to not only attract readers but, more importantly, to reduce costs. The response was to "lay off" and "buy out" news staff.
Last year alone, by one estimate, some 5900 full-time newsroom jobs -about 11 percent of the US news work force-were lost.
The good news is that few of those workers science journalists�The bad news is they had already been let go in the first round of firings. Because of the perceived lack of interest in science news --or its perceived appeal to a limited, older, audience--science journalists were among the first to go.
Take the example of The Boston Globe -a daily newspaper with long history of outstanding science journalism and, as late as three months ago, still one of the few remaining dailies in the US to publish a special weekly science-health
section. Despite this tradition, five senior members of this section accepted early-retirement offers in the first round of staff reduction. Although the paper saved a considerable amount of money, its readers lost a cumulative total of some 125 years of experience and expertise.
Since then, the science staff has been reduced even more and the special section has been discontinued. In fact, the Globe itself is in danger of being closed down permanently by its parent company--ironically enough--The New York Times Corporation, which expects the Globe to lose some $80 million this year.
Even media that look profitable and healthy on paper can't seem to resist cutting staff. Earlier this year, the cable news giant -CNN, whose international broadcasts are seen by many Europeans-disbanded its entire science unit -including prize-winner reporters and producers.
No wonder then, that while the US national association of science writers still has some 3000 members, less than 70 of them are full-time staff reporters or editors for news organizations. The rest of us-including me-are freelancers, or educators, or, increasingly, public relations practitioners.
Nor should it be surprising that much science coverage in mainstream US media is now short, choppy, headline-grabbing spots about "medical breakthroughs," "miracle cures," and "landmark discoveries." The experts who once might have evaluated the worth of reported results have retired, the news space for longer, more interpretative insights on research has been reduced, the target audience is perceived as having the attention span of ground squirrels, and the media executives running the show have the sensibilities of shoe salesmen.
The second major force affecting the future of science journalism is the rise of alternative outlets to traditional newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks.
Now, when I mention my concern to people, whether they be media professionals or not, many take strong exception. They point to the proliferation of cable channels and websites, blogs and Twitters, especially those devoted exclusively to science, and claim--quite convincingly, in fact--that today anyone who wants to find news about science and technology can certainly find it!
I agree, but with a caveat.
The emergence of cable, electronic books, video, and the Internet has certainly created a plethora of outlets, with news and information available instantly, continuously, and in abundance. But this diversity has also led to fragmentation of the media--and their publics. While there are more and more--indeed, seemingly infinite!--channels available, each attracts ever smaller and more focused audiences.
Ironically, despite all these new outlets, the total amount of news digested by any one individual really hasn't changed that much. Studies show that the time people spend with the news has remained basically static--even as the sources of news have multiplied like rabbits.
What seems to have happened is that the time many Americans once spent perusing a daily newspaper or magazine has now shifted to watching television or going on line for news. There has been a loss of reading time, but no appreciable gain in the average total daily news diet.
It is not surprising, then, that each NSF survey from 1999 to 2009 has found that television is the primary source of science and technology news for most Americans....and for Europeans, too.
But if viewers depend solely on television for their science news, they will be badly served. A Pew Trust survey published in early 2008 showed that if you watched five hours of cable on a typical day during what was then a election year, you'd get 35 minutes of politics, 36 minutes of debate over US foreign policy, 26 minutes of crime, 12 minutes of disasters, 10 minutes of celebrity news, and, sadly enough, less than one minute of science news.
No wonder then that only about 11 percent of Americans can identify a living "role model scientist" -and most of those name either Bill Gates or Al Gore.
Obviously, there is a market for science on the tube. The "Discovery" and "Nature" channels in the United States, as well as comparable enterprises in other countries, such as the "Science Channel" in Japan, have all found substantial and sustained audiences. The "Discovery Channel of Canada" can even support a daily, one-hour, science news magazine, perhaps the only one of its kind in the world.
But, again, one needs to seek it out. To a large part, science news exists only in isolated electronic pigeonholes--available to all, but accessed primarily by those people with special interests.
The fragmentation of science news providers has become even more extreme with the rise of Internet use. The same NSF surveys of the past decade that showed television to be the prime source of science news also showed that print media was the second -albeit a distant second - most popular source of information.
The latest NSF survey, however, shows that the Internet is now the second most popular source-and its popularity continues to grow.
Although cable audiences rose by nearly 40 percent between 2007 and 2008, much of that gain was ephemeral, based on election-year interest, and cable television began losing viewers early this year. By contrast, in the same period, the audience for on-line news grew some 27 percent--and continues to gain ground in 2009.
"Although the Internet is not the leading source of news," says the report, "It is now the preferred source when people are seeking information about specific scientific issues." When asked where they would go to get more information on a topic such as global warming or biotechnology, 44 percent of respondents chose the Internet as the preferred source. Only half as many chose books or other printed materials.
A look at how people search for medical information is instructive. According to the Pew Research Center, ten years ago, when 46 percent of American adults had access to the Internet, about one-quarter went on-line to seek health information. Today, 74 percent of Americans have Internet access, and nearly 60 percent report seeking health information on line for themselves or family.
Intuitively, one suspects that the Web is widely used to obtain medical, health, and technical information, simply because it is so well suited for presenting--and delivering-- information rapidly, easily, and cheaply. Indeed, with a lap-top and modem, anyone can become his or her own science reporter, gathering news (and raw data) directly from authoritative sources-- without ever leaving one's home or office and without any editorial interpretation or control.
More interesting, studies indicate most Internet users clearly consider health sites and sites run by governments or non-profit research institutions to be more credible and reliable than those run by pharmaceutical firms or special interest groups. In other words, people using the Internet not only act like very much like professional journalists, they also seem to apply the same kind of information-filtering criteria.
Perhaps this is why science journalism per se does not seem to have a very prominent web-presence. While science stories appear regularly on the large aggregated news sites--Google or Yahoo, for example--or as part of so-called legacy sites, like The New York Times or the BBC--no science-specific web site--with the possible exception of "The Weather Channel.com"--appears on any list of "most visited" sites.
Instead, the audience for science news on line is very focused. This means some sci-tech sites get high responses when there is some topical news event occurring. For example Space.com tends to get lots of visits during times of space experiments or astronomical events.
Science blogs, especially those written by scientists, have also gained considerable popularity in the past year. Although an article in Nature early this year suggested that science blogs might even "supplant the old media," few have achieved great popular or commercial success. And, again, like science web sites, most appeal to very small, specialized audiences, differentiated by disciplines-biology, astronomy, archaeology-rather than general interest science.
Blogs, by their very nature, are dependent on the time and effort devoted by one or two individuals. As a result, blogs, as a genre, seem to have a very short shelf life. Technorati, a blog search engine, estimates that only 7.4 million of the 133 million blogs it monitors had been updated in the past 120 days. In other words, 75 percent of blogs are simply abandoned by their owners, usually due to lack of interest or response.
My own-and totally unscientific survey--suggests that science-based blogs may have considerably more staying power . Perhaps it's because the operators -often scientists with a literary bent-are so passionate about their subjects. Or, maybe it is just that new technologies appeal to the nerdy folks who are into science and technology. For example, American astronauts have added Twitter to the public communication package offered during space flights.
At the same time, I don't find that the currently most popular technologies -Blogs and Twitters- are particularly well suited for transmitting science news. The personal opinions of some researchers-or the banal activities of some others-may be interesting or entertaining, but they are not necessarily educating or illuminating. It is hard to describe a new genetic discovery or explain the uncertainty principle in 140 characters or less.
In defense of Twitter, however, it a useful way to keep abreast of fast-breaking news. But most of science doesn't move quite as fast as World Cup competition-or the turmoil following the Iranian electrions-so it is hard to see what is gained by speed and brevity. Still, clever users have found ways to link their Tweets-mainly through the "tiny.url" device-to longer, more detailed information banks.
Many social scientists in the US are concerned that large numbers of Americans might someday use the Web as their only source of news. News consumption is supposed to encourage engagement in civic life, but Web use---and particularly Tweeting-- is, as one observer notes, "news consumption in its most minimalist form."
In fact, viewing news on the Web can take away one of the most important elements of news consumption in the old media: browsing. "People tend to go on line to look for exactly what they are interested in," says one critic. "And this narrows their horizons, it does not expand them." ( Barringer, 2001)
This maybe the new media's most deleterious affect on science journalism. Although more science information may be available, in a depth and detail never before possible, it is increasingly available only at specialized sites, e.g, the trade magazine, the cable channel, and the website. The result is a "ghetto-ization" of science and technology news. Unintentionally, science is again being presented as something esoteric and abstract, separate and outside of daily experience--a perception two generations of science communicators had attempted to erase.
On the other hand, using and adapting to the ways of the new media may be the only way that science journalism will survive. Or, as I suggest in my title, how it might rise again.
In fact, as if to contradict all my negative and pessimistic predictions, the atmosphere in London last week-particularly among younger journalists-was cautiously optimistic. And a report on the state of American news media issued earlier this year by the Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that, while the traditional mass-market print and broadcast media will probably continue on their death spirals to oblivion, the new electronic and digital technologies may lead to new forms of journalism for this new age.
For example, there has been much discussion about non-profit organizations assuming ownership of the press. While this is unlikely in the case of general news operations, where the scale and costs are just too large, the model works well in targeted subject areas-investigative or health reporting, for example.
One such venture is the Kaiser Health News Service created by the Kaiser Family Foundation to produce stories about the policies and politics of health care, including coverage of the insurance industry, physicians, hospitals, and prescription drugs.
Another possible approach may be the creation of subscription-based on-line specialty sites designed for elite professional audiences. Nature and Science both maintain such sites as extended benefits available only to readers who paid their magazine subscriptions. It is possible that web-only popular science sites could appeal to more general audiences.
The report also notes that power is gradually shifting away from old-line journalism institutions, such as the weekly news magazine, and--through email, blogs, and social media outlets--moving toward individual journalists. Already there are several on-line experiments--such as GlobalPost for coverage of foreign affairs and ProPublica for investigative journalis--operated as collaboratives in which the work of individual reporters is sold to large news outlets, an arrangement similar to that of photo agencies representing freelance photographers.
A similar venture devoted to science reporting was launched just last month--on June 5, World Environment Day, to be exact. The service, called New Science Journalism, is a collaborative using mainly student contributors who will share in any advertising revenues. I found the first couple weeks of NSJ to be a little spotty, with its strongest point so far being the links to other sites and blogs. However, it did give my research for this presentation a boost by providing a list of "50 top science Twitters."
There is even some evidence that traditional news organizations themselves have finally recognized the potential of the Web and are actively developing multiple forms of distribution. On one level this means allowing citizen journalists to participate in the news gathering and sharing process. On another it means placing news content on as many platforms as possible-linking news stories to other websites, or videos, and blogs, as well as encouraging reporters use blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, to interact directly with audiences.
The New York Times has effectively used this approach to expand the audience-if not necessarily the advertising revenue--for its Tuesday Science Times section. And several old-line, long-time, print magazines-such as Scientific American and Science News-have shed their once staid and stodgy images to become bright and lively electronic presences on the Web. Whether they can find the advertising revenue or other financial means to support the creation of content is still a question.
Indeed, whether any of these grand plans for saving the news industry prove viable or not, the trend toward "narrow-band" programming will certainly continue, and general science news may never recapture the audiences, at least in the United States, it enjoyed in the 1970s and 80s.
Already many mainstream journalists who once covered general science for broad diverse audiences are now going on-line as the content specialists for public and private research institutions. It is no coincidence that one of the most successful science blogs-called, interestingly enough, "scienceblog.com"-proudly claims "it lives, breathes, and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe."
By default, then, the main sources of research news are rapidly becoming those very organizations that do the research. The public relations departments of many research institutions now communicate directly with the public without going through an outside reporter. This makes for easy, effective transmittal of information; but, without an independent press, there is almost no one to evaluate this information, critique the research, or check the credentials -and financial interests -of the researchers.
And even those science journalists who remain independent risk becoming glorified "newsletter experts," writing almost exclusively for an insular group of intellectually elite and influential "insiders" who determine the support--and direction--of scientific research and technological development for all of the rest of us.
Of course, as I said at the beginning, I may be totally wrong. Some new media, some new technology-probably one not even dreamed of and invented by a nerdy teenager not even born yet-may again change all the rules of science journalism in the future.
Personally, I still hope we could find some way to preserve and promote the old general interest magazine, like "Collier's," or the omnibus television program, or the big, messy, undigested daily newspaper where science and technology are mixed with all the other ingredients of current culture's rich stew, to be discovered, with surprise and delight, by the casual browser.
Such a browser, perhaps a young man or woman not yet committed to either career path or life journey, might then be inspired to become a chemist, an engineer, an astrophysicist, or, perhaps, even a journalist.
REFERENCES
Barringer, Felicity. "Growing Audience Is Turning To Established News
Media Online." The New York Times, August 27, 2001
Brumfiel, Geoff. "Supplanting the old media?" Nature, Volume 458, 19 March 2009, pp. 274-277.
Goepfert, Winfried. Personal communication. Sepember 4, 2001
Harmon, Amy "Exploration of World Wide Web Tilts From Eclectic to Mundane." The New York Times, August 26, 2001.
Hartz, Jim and Rick Chappell. WORLDS APART: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's Future. First Amendment Center, Nashville, 1997
Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. THE ELEMENTS OF JOURNALISM. Crown, New York, 2001.
National Science Foundation "Chapter 7: Public Attitudes and Understanding" SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS 2008. Washington, DC, May 2008.
Nieman Reports. "Special Issue 2004: Reporting on Science,
Environment, Health, and Medical Reporting." Nieman
Foundation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2004
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "The Shared Search for Health Information on the Internet" June 11, 2009 www.pewresearch.org/pubs/>
The Project for Excellence in Journalism. "The State of the News Media : An Annual Report on American Journalism" 2009