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:  http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/envirojournalism
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:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1
Science journalism approaches terminal velocity by John Hawks (2010) – Regarding the sad state of science journalism, or the public perception thereof:  http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/science-journalism-terminal-velocity-2010.html
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”:  http://www.thisisyourbrainonawesome.com/2010/10/the-often-sorry-state-of-science-journalism/
Guide to linking on the BBC News website by BBC (Sept. 2010) – one small step for sciencekind, let’s hope there’s more uptake:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/38963534/BBC-guidelines-for-linking-–-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:  http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/win-new-bbc-guidelines-say-science-news-stori
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:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/oct/08/bbc-link-guidelines
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”:  http://bigthink.com/ideas/24330
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.”:  http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/bad_science_journalism_and_myth_oppressed_underdog
‘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).”:   http://www.goodbadandbogus.com/bad-science/gravity-doesnt-exist-says-philosophically-naive-scientistjournalist/
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?”:  http://www.goodbadandbogus.com/bad-science/should-journalists-report-on-unpublished-research/
Seconded by Landon Ross (15 June 2010) – “The UK media is playing with fire…”:  http://www.rationalape.com/2010/06/seconded.html
Shark reporting fail in my hometown newspaper by WhySharksMatter (16 July 2010) – “They’re sneaking up behind shrimping nets in swarms”:  http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=6408
Should science journalists take sides? by Ed Yong (23 Sept. 2010) – “The problem comes from a desire to be objective or neutral.”:  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/09/23/should-science-journalists-take-sides/
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.”:  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/09/a-good-week-for-uk-science-journalism-despite-one-big-fail/
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”:  http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2010/02/telegraph-science-journalism-fail-or.html
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”:   http://opensource.com/life/10/7/oil-spill-doomsday-debunked-did-peer-review-journalism-fail-or-succeed
“Idiocracy” introduction – the future of human evolution by Throck81 (18 Sept. 2009) – Evolution does not necessarily award intelligence – :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo
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?”: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/10/14/neil-graham-science-journalists-don’t-underestimate-your-audience/
Science and the Media by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2010) Pretty damning all round. Alan Alda?:  http://amacad.org/pdfs/scienceMedia.pdf

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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