In The Field

AAAS: Science journalism in crisis?

‘Science journalism in crisis’ was the title of a special press briefing this afternoon, jammed with worried-looking science reporters. And the news, as expected, was bleak—but not entirely so.

The organizer, University of Wisconsin journalism professor (and Pulitzer prize winner) Deborah Blum, explained that the session was precipitated by CNN’s decision last December to axe its entire space, science and environment unit—which was only the most dramatic of many other such decisions made by media organizations in recent years. In hard economic times, said Blum, science coverage is being perceived as a luxury, and thus expendable.

Some data to quantify that trend in the US was given by Cristine Russell, a former science reporter for the Washington Post, and now the president of the US Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. Membership in the largest professional organization, the National Association of Science Writers, currently stands at 2222. But of those only 79 are full-time staff reporters on newspapers, a significant drop over previous years, and only 15 work for science magazines. But some 860 are freelancers, a number that appears to be growing over time. The number working for Internet sites is growing, as well. A survey of the smaller Society of Environmental Journalists shows similar trends.

Meanwhile, says Russell, the number of dedicated science pages in US newspapers has fallen from a peak of 95 in 1989 to 34 in 2005, and is still dropping—with a big shift toward consumer and health reporting in those remaining.

Russell cited the example of the Boston Globe, which has had an outstanding science section with seven health and science reporters plus two editors. Last April, science coverage was moved to the inside of the newspaper’s front section. Then in January, it was cut from 3 pages to 2. And recently the Globe announced that it would be eliminated entirely as a separate entity, with science and technology going into the business section.

The good news, said Russell, is that science is central to many front-page issues that aren’t ‘science’ in the conventional sense—some obvious examples being climate change, energy, stem cells, reproductive technology, natural disasters, and nuclear proliferation. So there are things science reporters can do, assuming that the higher-ups will listen. Perhaps most important, they should not shy away from the policy aspects of their stories, but should work to keep a place at the top table, where the decisions are made about how news is covered. The New York Times is conducting an interesting experiment along those lines, in which it will coordinate and integrate all its environmental reporting, whether it comes from the science, business, national or international sections.

Finally, said Russell, it’s critical that professional societies work harder to document what is happening, and where people laid off from conventional media jobs are going.

Comments

Comments are closed.