In general, science journalism concerns itself with what has been published in a handful of peer-reviewed journals - Nature, Cell, The New England Journal of Medicine - which set the agenda.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I have friends who are science journalists, and I'm seeing stories of theirs or talking with them about ideas that they're pitching. Certain kinds of science are around me all the time, like climate change and biology.
Science coverage could be improved by the recognition that science is timeless, and therefore science stories should not need to be pegged to an item in the news.
If journalism is good, it is controversial, by its nature.
The media thinks that only the cutting edge of science, the very latest controversies, are worth reporting on. How often do you see headlines like 'General Relativity still governing planetary orbits' or 'Phlogiston theory remains false'? By the time anything is solid science, it is no longer a breaking headline.
Journalism is about results. It's about affecting your community or your society in the most progressive way.
The big journals and Nobel laureates are the equivalent of Congressional leaders in science journalism.
Scientists generally are really chicken about getting involved in some kind of dispute. As a broadcaster, I find it very difficult to urge them, if it is a controversial subject. They don't want to have science being portrayed badly.
I think a lot of journal articles should really be blogs.
I am a writer and editor with a passion for true storytelling. To me, science matters, research matters and knowledge matters, whatever the field.
Science doesn't care, by and large, what the answers are. It's only interested in getting the right answer. And journalism should be very much that way.