close my intervention on the conduct of the lineup imminent that I will make the Round Table on Science and journalism at the International Festival in Ferrara (1-3 October). The other episodes are here , here and here .
The lineup is:
1. Science journalism is in crisis? And his difficulties are due to the network?
2. Rules and conventions of traditional scientific journalism
3. Difficulty of science journalism in new and old media
4. Innovative initiatives
5. Science journalism in the coming years between the "new journalism" and evolution of the relationship between science and society.
Step 4. Innovative initiatives
-blogger-scientists
The blog dedicated to science and medicine have increased substantially in recent years. The most interesting experience is the platform of the "Seed Media Group", "ScienceBlogs.com, launched in 2006 to facilitate interaction between researchers and other communities of science writers.
Some scholars believe that the characteristics of blogs make this instrument particularly suited to dialogue in science communication. The bloggers describe their successful scientific discoveries as an extraordinary and compelling intellectual journey during which they want to share with others the uncertainty and difficulties of cognitive battles they are facing. Everything is very well suited to everyday research. Blogs scientists did not tell us much about the "science ready", but allow us to put hands-on labs in the discussions in real time.
The controversy between scientists and science journalists and bloggers play the similar ones in other fields of journalism: the question about the possibility, capacity and legitimacy on the part of scientists to do without, thanks to the web, as mediators.
The same is true for projects in the network through which scientists and scientific institutions
can directly reach the readers, who tell firsthand details of their work in opposition to scientific information as well always less independent conveyed by mass media.
-initiatives which blurs the line between journalism and PR
A project that is stirring a lively debate in recent times is the site "Futurity.org" presented as the solution to the decline suffered by the scientific journalism in the traditional markets media information. The site is an aggregator of news releases produced by different research centers in America. Unlike similar existing initiatives, such as "EurekaAlert" dell'AAAS, the presentation of content is created with the help of captivating images and following logical reports.
Critics of "Futurity.org" argue that the site shuffles the cards in the corporate communications, public relations and journalism itself. His supporters believe that encourage scientists to communicate directly through the web and reduce the number of intermediate steps is a very positive thing because it finally allows the transmission of "truth" of nature.
The discussion provoked by "Futurity.org" indicates an interesting direction to explore: that of whether journalists "advisers" pro-science and find a new position as corporate communication. The network may select those who believe that their function is to include the information as correctly as possible the discoveries of science from those with a more critical and more consistent with the autonomy of journalism.
The example of "Futurity.org" is also interesting because it shows that scientific institutions are willing to invest in direct communication with the public through the Internet. If the project works, you are willing to do so in order to employ people with the background, skills and beliefs of the characteristics variables science journalist "embedded".
"Futurity.org" Finally it is interesting for our purposes for another reason. The discussion around the features of this site in fact proposes traditional issues: the issue of the accuracy with which they reported the news of science, the debate over who is more entitled to talk about science to the public for non-experts, the idea that there is a connection between science communication and public understanding and appreciation of science. All this takes place within the framework of new media.
The conditions are therefore those of the general pattern of deficits, although they are enriched by considerations of the characteristics of the current context of science communication, such as the confused relationship between public relations professionals and journalists who are becoming less the work of reporters and more than desk and scientists who want to interact directly with the public through new media. It will be interesting to see if the Internet with the results of efforts diffusionist view will be different from those held with traditional media. Scientific Journalism
-non-experts
We have described cases involving mainly scientists and journalists, but the possibility to influence the public debate on science through the production of information that does not come from traditional sources about many other actors, such as pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental associations, environmental groups. In this sense, there are several projects already established. There are successful projects in the health sector through the web 2.0 where patients, doctors, nurses, social workers, are invited to tell their experiences online with the aim to raise public awareness, involve more people in the research , to help families find solutions together with the fatigue of daily contact with loved ones suffering from. The guiding principle of these projects go beyond a passive or active involvement: Requires a real participation based on mutual respect and recognition of different types of knowledge, experience and expertise.
That said, what are the possible scenarios that open to the scientific journalism next few years?
addressed this issue in paragraph 5 of the lineup.
5. Science journalism in the coming years between the "new journalism" and evolution of the relationship between science and society.
The conclusion is that there is no longer a shared agreement on the definition of science journalism. Two large earthquakes have on soil erosion and landslides which historically rested with the rules and conventions of this specialized organization: one was the emergence of a new ecosystem of communications, a problem that concerns all the journalism and the second the changing relations between science and society.
As a result of the birth of the media ecosystem Again, it has become confused in the past the role of scientists and scientific institutions in providing information. The journalism has given as the main impact of erosion of the boundary line between scientists who communicate promotional reasons and journalists themselves.
This issue is related to the fact that the definition of "journalism" in general is expanding to include more and more forms of information production that did not exist until recently.
What is the precise line of demarcation that divides the activities that we call journalism from other forms of communication? Does it exist? I do not know.
I think that in any case is arbitrary and that at this time you are playing a major battle to redefine something that eventually will need to make a decision, a decision that ultimately is social and cultural.
This is all the more reason for science journalism, specializing particularly in crystalline forms and conventions increasingly aligned with the new communication ecosystem. Scientific journalism will continue to exist but will be a different profession from the present. What future will be the result of a review process of the scale that characterized the journalistic credibility in the past. This review should take into account particularly the consumption and use part of the news which is central the role of the network. On the other hand
blogs, websites and social networking increasingly show that many problems of the relationship between science and society can not be reduced solely to the scientific components, but should include broader issues concerning politics, economy , ethics and alternative forms of knowledge in scientific publications.
Enable effective dialogue is to have a sensitivity to listen, take into account the specific context of communication, asking "what" should be informed and "who." All facts that seems obvious but they are not when it comes to information and communication science.
The questions on the crisis science journalism mainly revolve around the survival of journalists born and raised in the press according to logic that are no longer universally valid.
Do not confuse this with the impression that there is more need for professional communicators of science. On the contrary. The application of science and technology in the media, especially to understand the mechanisms and social implications, is more alive than ever and the skills required for the new science journalist are, if anything, even more than in the past. Not enough to be comfortable with neurons, wave functions and protein and be able to produce simplified accounts of the good science and full of metaphors analogies. If you want to continue to tell interesting stories and useful to understand the changes in the relationship between science and society trying to translate into practice the consequences of the reconceptualization of the public gathering of science at the same time challenge the evolution of the media.
The ecosystem of science communicators and science journalists will increasingly be inhabited by a flora and fauna of high biodiversity in a position to experiment and propose new narratives.
0 comments:
Post a Comment