(Visited 47 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 The current methods of science news reporting don’t educate; they indoctrinate.When science journalism was advanced in the 1920s, it had a choice, says Michael Schulson in the Pacific Standard. Reporters were filled with the spirit of progress that was in the air. Scientists were viewed as “pioneers moving into a new world.”That progressive spirit has been there from the early days of science journalism. In the United States, science reporting took its shape shortly after World War I, when the newspaper magnate Edward Scripps founded Science Service, a non-profit wire service that would deliver science coverage to American newspapers.Incidentally, the weekly magazine Science News is a legacy of Science Service. One of its early missions during the Scopes Trial was to help Clarence Darrow make creationists out to be anti-science, and to interview scientists who could explain and defend evolution (12/28/05). Schulson continues:From the start, Science Service struggled to define itself: Was it in the business of public relations (PR) or journalism? “Scripps pondered whether [Science Service] should act as a press agent for the scientific associations or as an independent news service,” writes the historian Dorothy Nelkin. “While hoping to avoid simply disseminating propaganda, he chose the former role.” In its first iteration, the organization was called the American Society for the Dissemination of Science.Schulson argues strongly that science media today needs accountability. Bouncing off the LaCour scandal (12/12/14, 6/06/15) and the reproducibility crisis in psychology (9/05/15, 2/08/16), he points out areas of cheating, sloppiness, and conflict of interest that call into question the presumptive authority of science. He calls for “better investigative reporting” as a solution.Science reporters don’t usually look at research funding, nor do they critically evaluate the quality of the studies that they cover. Often, they lack the time or technical knowledge to dig into stories. In other cases, they may just be worried about challenging expert authority.All communities require watchdogs though. And while they are rare, promising models of investigative science journalism do exist.He’s thinking of Retraction Watch and a handful of reporters who do what is common in other kinds of journalism: questioning authority, digging for the facts. Is science so weak that it can’t take some beating up? Must reporters tiptoe in the presence of the experts?Does an institution’s strength come from a sense of omniscience? Or does it come from acknowledging its faults, and showing that it can address them, even as it produces useful results?If science cannot withstand some scrutiny, then its statements are not worth trusting. “Here’s the uncomfortable side of this story:” Schulson warns. “A substantial portion—maybe the majority—of published scientific assertions are false.“Defending the Status QuoIn “The Science Media Racket” (1/11/16), we criticized the way science reporters all come out together on the day science papers are published, like rubber ducks that all quack alike, each with the same story and artwork. On February 12 on The Conversation, Vivian Siegel defended the embargo system that enables science reporters and journal publishers to blitz the public like a corporate ad campaign.Scientific publishing serves both the scientist and the public. It’s a quid pro quo: the authors get to claim priority for the result – meaning they got there before any other scientists did – and in return the public (including competing scientists) gets access to the experimental design, the data and the reasoning that led to the result. Priority in the form of scientific publishing earns scientists their academic rewards, including more funding for their research, jobs, promotions and prizes; in return, they reveal their work at a level of detail that other scientists can build on and ideally replicate and confirm.And so, in 1977, the embargo system was instituted to keep papers secret until the big day of announcement. Reporters promise not to leak the paper until the agreed-on date.Multiple journalists get an equal chance to publish a well-researched and balanced article. In exchange for respecting the journal’s press embargo, reporters find out what’s being published in advance of publication. This gives multiple journalists a chance to read the scientific article, find experts who can help them make sense of the article, and publish a carefully crafted story. From the scientist’s (and scientific journal’s) perspective, this maximizes the quality and quantity of the coverage by the press.She gives other excuses. The public gets access to the paper close to the time of the press coverage instead of later (but most people lack access behind paywalls). Other scientists can vet the claims (but how many of them get a reporter’s ear?). It protects the authors’ priority (which is fine). It allows time for pre-publication peer review (nice in theory).I know of no case in which talking about a discovery in advance of scientific publication helps the public. Yes, “breaking news” is exciting. But journalists and other writers can tell riveting stories about science that convey the excitement of discovery without breaking journal embargoes. And the scientific community can continue to work on speeding its communication with the public while preserving the quid pro quo of scientific publication.Objections SustainedSiegel’s rationalizations for the status quo miss the point. Our critique was not about priority. It was not about jumping the gun. It was not about breaking agreements. The issue in our critique was about propaganda. All the reporters say the same things, with just minor nuances, acting as if they are loyal employees of Big Science Inc. There’s no investigative journalism, no hard questions, no doubting of the consensus. Where are the watchdogs Schulson wrote about? Instead of seeing themselves as real journalists, science reporters (with a few exceptions) act as P.R. agents for the scientific authorities. Like toadies for Pravda, they swallow the self-serving press releases of the authors’ universities or labs and regurgitate it to the public, seasoned with their particular juices. It doesn’t help things when the reporters’ social communities are predominantly leftist in political ideology. Most write as if they have never talked to a real conservative in their life, but only hear about them filtered through the editorial pages of the New York Times. Medical Xpress wrote about how conservatives and liberals do think differently. An enterprise that restricts itself to one view risks stifling thought, becoming intellectually hermaphroditic.The old 1977 system is way past its expiration date. So is the old “Science Service” of Edward Scripps. Those were before the internet. Now, bloggers are everywhere. The science Pravda machine, to compete in the new marketplace of ideas with its instantaneous global reach, must change. And it is changing. The exposès over reproducibility (Medical Xpress) and misuse of statistics (Nature, PhysOrg), the Lacour and Bicep2 scandals (2/02/15) have unveiled the fallibility of scientific “experts.” Blushing a little over their complicity, the big journals are moving toward transparency, pre-publication peer review, and open access (6/02/14, 6/13/06).What’s still missing, though, is true journalism. “How do you know that?” should be the first question in a reporter’s arsenal when interviewing a scientist. Imagine if a reporter had the audacity to question the political ties of the consensus, or their conflicts of interest. Imagine if the AAAS maintained a 50/50 mix of Democrats and Republicans. Imagine if the philosophical materialism of a scientist became an issue in his latest claim about evolution. What if, instead of printing another evolutionary speculation about the origins of altruism, PNAS printed a historical account of the rise of materialism in scientific communities?Reporters and the public need to respect the learning of scientists who have spent many years studying genes, neutrinos or fossils. They should respect their math skills or ability to operate cutting-edge technology. But scientists should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other scholars in any other field, including politicians who have law degrees or historians who have history degrees. The more controversial the claim, the more scrutiny is needed. The more a claim impinges on public policy, the more debate is needed. If a finding is solid, it can take the heat.We call on university science departments, labs and science news organizations to hire more conservatives. In a day of deep political divides, you are doing yourself no favor by aligning with the left. To many Americans, you look like an arm of the Democratic party (or even the communist party). If you want credibility with the public, you need to at least give an appearance of objectivity. You can’t do that when you pretend to use “science” to support abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research and other darling projects of Democrats (2/28/14) that half the public despises. Get out there and talk to conservatives. Interview the Darwin critics, the ones with PhDs in science. Expand your horizons. Tear down this wall. Let the free flow of ideas get past your chokepoints. Science is not supposed to be about political ideology, social reinforcement or tradition. It’s supposed to be about logic and evidence. Let those be your guiding lights.
Ok for people today with a substantial head as it was way to huge.Seriously awesome merchandise, superior size, terrific worth.Helps make me sense really girly and feminine which isn’t really an simple endeavor. I’ve been publishing opinions and have understood that i am posting under my husbands title. I am the wife so it will make it a minor a lot easier to make me feel feminine than you could initial have believed. Lol sorry for the confusion.A lovely headband with a really bridal come to feel. A wonderful headband with a incredibly bridal truly feel. Took a extensive time to arrive but a crazily lower cost unquestionably made up for that. I’m trying to keep it as an option for my marriage ceremony future year.Really good and quite but i’ve had to trim the quite. On the entire, rather wonderful and really but i’ve had to trim the very tough and untidy edges myself.Truly great, really satisfied with it.Appears great, slightly bridal, a bit as well significant. Get a lot of compliments when i use this, even though it can glimpse a little bit bridal. I like to pair it with manly clothes, like oversized shirts. It can be a very little massive for my head so occasionally would not sit as easily as i would like, so if you have a smallish head this could possibly be truly worth heeding. I believe it really should be quite simple to shorted, even though i have but to search into this. I preserve obtaining lovely responses about it so i have ended up obtaining it for buddies much too.It is extremely really and in-depth and superior qaulity for the price. I asked for the white and i been given a black one. Took a few weeks to arrive but, it is extremely quite and specific and excellent qaulity for the rate.Fantastic products at a great value.The elastic is unfastened on my head but which is possibly simply because i have a small head.Headband looked pretty clever and outstanding for value.Reviews from purchasers :elegant and feminineLooks great, slightly bridal, slightly too bigA lovely headband with a very bridal feel. Took it is very pretty and detailed and good qaulity for the pricequite nice and pretty but I’ve had to trim the very read more
8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Tags:#NYT#TWiOT#web curt hopkins Related Posts Chinese Hackers Bring Down Change.org in Response to Ai Weiwei Campaign. Chinese government-sponsored hackers took down Change.org with a DDoS campaign after the site registered over 100,000 signatories on a petition in favor of the imprisoned Chinese artist. Ai Weiwei had been known for his role in the construction of the Beijing Olympic stadium and as China’s leading digital activist and a pioneer in the use of blogging and Twitter in China.Love the future.Syria blocks YouTube. In between killing its citizens, promising to repeal its emergency laws and enacting restrictive laws that make the emergency laws old hat, Syria has blocked YouTube again. This time, a graphic video of a 12 year-old boy shot in the face (do I need to warn you about this video?) during protests was the inspiration. Dubai blogger now charged with possessing demon rum. Ahmed Mansur, who was arrested last week for post critical of the UAE government, has had an additional charge heaped on him – possessing alcohol, a crime for an Emirati to possess, though it’s served in hotels like it’s going out of style. Perhaps the thought is observers will leave the poor city-state alone out of deference for its culture where they might not if they were honest about the real reasons for his arrest. Iranian blogger arrested for “terror plot.” A blogger, whose name was not given, was allegedly arrested. The reason given was his *sighs, rolls eyes* plot against the country’s president Ahmajinedad. Since the source is a pro-government publication, at least some, if not all, of the report is false. Iran to create “halal Internet.” I think if I were Muslim I would be pissed off at Iran’s use of this term to describe an infantilized Internet they plan to have ready in about 18 months. Religion is, as it always is in these online censorship situations, a mask for the real goal of the censors: obedience. The Iranian government intends to offer other Muslim countries the use of this “Internet.” (What’s Persian for “backdoor”?)Uganda blocks Twitter and Facebook. In an historical move, given sub-Saharan Africa’s largely complete freedom from filtering, Uganda has sent its three largest ISPs a memo requesting they block Twitter and Facebook. The reason? To “eliminate the connection and sharing of information that incites the public.”Bahraini doctors arrested so protesters will die. Bahrain’s security apparatus has arrested 32 doctors, one who was operating on a patient at the time. This is in defiance of the Geneva Convention. HTTPS Now Campaign Aims To Secure The Internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Access, a digital freedom activist group, have partnered together to start “HTTPS Now,” a campaign to spread awareness and advocate for increased Internet security.U.S. screw-ups. There are a number of stateside idiot moves that deserve note. Michigan police stealing motorists’ private data with handhelds.National Science Foundation blocks the proxies its government funds. Court hearing canceled on whether Twitter info can be compelled in Wikileaks case. Facebook lobbyist tells WSJ the company is allowing too much free speech. read more