For the Record #1: Bad Science Journalism

I encounter a huge volume of online articles and commentary on such subjects as Darwin and Darwinism, writing, bad science journalism, ingrown nipples and rectal prolapses, most of which I would love to have the time to dissect and disseminate here on this Blog, but being a mere mortal, I am going to have to be satisfied with simply listing them from time to time, just for the record:
Bad Science Journalism
The Sorry State of Environmental Journalism by Bill Chameides (7 Oct. 2010) – The impact of bad science journalism is an ignorant electorate:
This is a news website article about a scientific paper by Martin Robbins (27 Sept. 2010) – The template for mediocrity and unprofessionalism in scientific journalism:
Science journalism approaches terminal velocity by John Hawks (2010) – Regarding the sad state of science journalism, or the public perception thereof:
The Often Sorry State of Science Journalism by Chris Holdgraf (Oct. 2010) – “problem largely stems from the lack of scientific background that many of our science journalists have”:
Guide to linking on the BBC News website by BBC (Sept. 2010) – one small step for sciencekind, let’s hope there’s more uptake:–-Sept-2010
WIN: new BBC guidelines say science news stories must link to the scientific paper by Ben Goldacre (8 Oct. 2010) – Great development towards responsible science journalism; just got to get the journos to read the papers now:
BBC alters link guidelines for online articles by Josh Halliday Friday (8 Oct. 2010) – Reporters are now including links to primary articles instead of linking to a journal’s homepage:
Science Is to Journalism As a Fish Is to a Bicycle by David Berreby on (2 Oct. 2010) – “the industry’s standards for “good journalism” aren’t compatible with the standards of good science”:
Bad Science Journalism And The Myth Of The Oppressed Underdog by Michael White (9 Mar. 2008) – “What gets lost is the scientific method, the idea that novel proposals need to be thoroughly vetted and tested, no matter how intuitively attractive they are.”:
‘Gravity doesn’t exist’, says philosophically naive scientist/journalist by Michael (16 July 2010) – “the seeming philosophical niavity of both the journalist, and the physicist (assuming the physicist hasn’t been completely misquoted).”:
Should journalists be writing about research that hasn’t undergone peer review? by Michael (9 Apr. 2010) – ” Should unpublished work be off-limits for science journalists? Does it depend on the subject matter? Does it depend on the credentials of the researchers?”:
Seconded by Landon Ross (15 June 2010) – “The UK media is playing with fire…”:
Shark reporting fail in my hometown newspaper by WhySharksMatter (16 July 2010) – “They’re sneaking up behind shrimping nets in swarms”:
Should science journalists take sides? by Ed Yong (23 Sept. 2010) – “The problem comes from a desire to be objective or neutral.”:
A good week for UK science journalism (despite one big fail) by Ed Yong (29 June 2010) – “I’m still staring wide-eyed in disbelief over that, but a couple of noteworthy events today have lifted my spirits about the state of the country’s science journalism.”:
Science Journalism Fail: Or, ARRRRGHHHH!!!111! by Michael Meadon (2 feb. 2010) – “How the hell Alleyne got from the paper to THAT conclusion is utterly beyond me”:
Oil spill doomsday debunked. Did peer review journalism fail or succeed? by Ruth Suehle (14 July 2010) – “f the news hasn’t reached you, the world’s going to end in about six months”:
“Idiocracy” introduction – the future of human evolution by Throck81 (18 Sept. 2009) – Evolution does not necessarily award intelligence – :
Neil Graham: Science journalists, don’t underestimate your audience by Neil Graham (14 Oct. 2010) – “why aren’t links to original research papers included in scientific news stories as a matter of course?”:’t-underestimate-your-audience/
Science and the Media by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2010) Pretty damning all round. Alan Alda?:

About JFDerry

Author Upcoming book: THE DISSENT OF MAN.
This entry was posted in Books, For the Record and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to For the Record #1: Bad Science Journalism

  1. Michael says:

    Hey — thanks for the links. I’m glad you liked my writing.🙂

  2. JFDerry says:

    Hi Mikey, yes you have some good stuff over at Good, Bad and Bogus.

  3. Having read this I believed it was extremely enlightening.
    I appreciate you finding the time and effort to put this
    information together. I once again find myself spending way too
    much time both reading and commenting. But so what,
    it was still worthwhile!

  4. Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all of us you really know what you are speaking about!
    Bookmarked. Please also consult with my website =). We may have a hyperlink trade agreement among us

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s