Last week’s Royal Institution debate on science reporting in the media has stirred up a whole range of discussions online, from the role of science media centres to the hottest question of the night: whether science journalists should be reading the primary literature behind their story. The discussion raged on Twitter during the debate and afterwards, with one side arguing that no journalist could ever understand all the papers they need to cover, even in a narrow field of reporting, with the other claiming that it is a basic part of the job, and to fail is, in the words of Ed Yong, malpractice.

To add to the conversation, several of the nature.com bloggers  have written their own responses to the debate, beginning with Matt Shipman, the Public Information Officer at North Carolina State University who has been writing a series of related posts over the last week on the Soapbox Science blog. In his response to the debate, Matt takes on the debate over journalists reading papers with his view:

I agree that it would be great if reporters read all the papers they wrote about. However, I also think it is both wildly optimistic and very unrealistic to expect most journalists to do so. After all, the odds are excellent that the journalist would not be able to understand what they’re reading anyway.

What follows is not an excuse for shoddy reporting, but a view on how reading the paper isn’t the only – or even the best – way to understand and report on the research. Well worth a read, and keep going to the end for an anecdote on how the lay science reporter can even sometimes go one better than the scientific experts.

Meanwhile, Tim Skellett, an Australian blogger asks whether blogs are really important for the mainstream press:

Can your blog or your networking change the world for the better? Will the media take notice of you unasked? The answer to both questions is a definite yes.

With a series of examples of times when blogs have had a huge impact on traditional reporting, including the famous British case of Night Jack, the blogging policeman outed by The Times, Tim argues that not only can blogs make a difference, but they do and it is up to everyone to use that power to try to help improve the standard of science in the media.

Last but not least, new Nature Network blogger Peter Etchells, who was at the debate, gave his view as a scientist on the issues raised on the night, saying amongst other things:

I was particularly disappointed to find from the poll that Cardiff Uni conducted that very few scientists thought it was their fault when their work got misrepresented in the media. That really has to change – if you’re not explaining your work properly, either directly to the media or via a press office, then it’s not fair to get uppity about it when it’s printed. Let’s clean up our own backyard before we start treading on someone else’s.

As well as on the blogs, there is plenty of discussion going on on Google Plus: see a sample of comments below and do join in the debate.

You can watch the recording of the event in the video below.  The debate continues on Twitter under the hashtag #riscimedia and on Google Plus where you can discuss this, or any other stories from nature.com. Do let us know your thoughts!

Alok Jha: Science and the Media – Presentations from The Royal Institution on Vimeo.

Scientists and journalists need different things from science. Discuss. That was the topic up for discussion at a special event at the Royal Institution on Tuesday evening, curated by the Guardian’s Alok Jha.

Chair Dr Alice Bell, science communicator, academic and lecturer at Imperial and UCL was joined by panelists Dr Chris Chambers from the University of Cardiff’s School of Psychology, Dr Ananyo Bhattacharya, Chief Online Editor of Nature, freelance science journalist and blogger, Ed Yong, and the Head of the UK’s Science Media Centre, Fiona Fox.  Framing the discussion online last week, Alok Jha had stated, “It is a truth universally acknowledged that the media, in general, could do a better job of reporting science”.

Alok proposed that there are good scientists, good journalists and a genuine desire to communicate science to the public but in many cases, good communication isn’t happening. Why not, and what can scientists and journalists do to improve the situation? The debate is not new – amongst many others, panelist Ananyo Bhattacharya last year wrote a series of three blog posts on the nature of science journalism and the distinction from science communication – and tonight’s event was specifically designed to get past theoretical, and often unproductive argument, and towards a set of practical actions which might be genuinely useful in changing things.

During the build up, Chris Chambers and colleagues set out a scientist’s view, while Ananyo Bhattacharya put forward the journalist’s point of view. Discussion was encouraged before and after the event using the Twitter hashtag #riscimedia and many other interested parties had their say, amongst them Matt Shipman, PIO at North Carolina State University, who has written a related seriesof three guest posts for Nature.com’s Soapbox Science blog on what scientists and journalists can expect from each other and the pitfalls and possibilities of being a non-expert writing on science.

With considerable debate having already occurred online, the discussion began at the RI: for those who missed it, we’ve created a Storify record of the event for you to follow along below. If you’d like to continue the conversation or add your feedback about the event, do leave a comment or get in touch.