Science Reporting and the Paradigm Shift in Media

So, my previous entry stirred up a little hornet’s nest of interest and discussion (in comments and also at our hacienda) about new media and science reporting. I think there’s an awful lot of attention being paid to the term “new media” by “old media”, with the particular concern being voiced of “what’s going to happen to old media?” Is there a paradigm shift? If so, what’s it going to do for science media?

The essence of reporting news hasn’t changed in all the years that “media” has existed. In the beginning — back in the first days of town criers and then broadsheets, it was “the news of the day.”  That hasn’t changed over the centuries and it’s still true today. People do stuff, other people tell other people about it.

What IS changing is the strict old model of “one to many” where the newspaper or TV news was the sole source of news and everybody watched that “one” source.  Today, we have many sources and they’re not all professional newsgathering organizations.  There’s a value in having professional newsgatherers round up the news and put it all in one place — don’t get me wrong on that.  What I am finding more disappointing these days is that the decision-makers at the mainstream media outlets are decidering that news about dysfunctional political families in Alaska or someone’s clothing merits constant coverage. News happens 24/7. There’s lots of it. So, why do we keep seeing the same stories on the front page of CNN (for example) for several days running?  Is that all they have on the spindle?  They do a fine job of covering breaking news, but they leave up other news stories to rot on the vine while good stuff goes unreported.  That is a failing — and not just of CNN (I just pick on them because they are a popular source from which people get their news).  Space on page 1 (or its equivalent) is at a premium in media organizations, and so the editors and deciderers must figure out what to cover on the front and what to let run elsewhere. It’s not an easy job.

When it comes to science coverage, newspapers and TV have always had an uneasy relationship with the subject.  When I went to J school for my masters’ and talked to an advisor about strengthening my science reporting skills, the response was “Why do you want to study that geeky sh*t?”  This from a former political reporter who spent years covering some really nasty sh*t from politicians.  But, of course, political sh*t bleeds… and it leads.  Science doesn’t bleed — unless, of course, you can find some story about a mutant or whatever and write about that. Then, it might lead, but only below the fold and not always on page 1.  And, of course, there’s what we call “pretty picture” coverage (similar to the “awwww…” picture of a kitty, puppy, or baby that every news desk editor worth his or her salt would keep to plug an errant news hole).

But, science is still held (in the mainstream media) as this sort of weird subject that you have to be a rocket scientist to cover and understand. There was (and still is) a very solid cadre of science reporters (we’re a group growing smaller though) who knew their stuff and would show up at press conferences asking questions that were quite incisive.  Many of us have science backgrounds and we have specialized in science writing. It required a bit more knowledge — and if you want to have good coverage in any section of news, you send someone who can talk the language (i.e. business reporters for business, sports writers for sports, etc.).   I don’t think that’s going to change in the “new media” world. What is changing is the vehicle for our reporting and the avenues through which our work is available. Hence podcasts, vodcasts, blogs, and other media vehicles created by those of us who know our science and know how to write and produce about it.

The value of “new media” in the shape of podcasts, vodcasts, twitter account, and other ways that news filters out on the Web is that the accessibility of the Web allows for a number of different voices to make their stories heard. If you follow the Carnival of Space every week, you probably already know of the many different sites (including this one) where you can get news and discussion about astronomy and space science news. If you listen to 365 Days  of Astronomy, you are getting background info on astronomy and space science, sometimes from folks doing the actual work — a sort of “one on one”  interview with a newsmaker, unfiltered by a media presence. You can surf around to the Web sites of every major observatory and space agency in the world and find out the latest. You can read people like me writing about that science being done, adding our own insights (from experience) to the news stories.

I can see where this would be scary to “old media” types who have relied on the old ways of doing things. And, it’s understandable. But, change is part of the media.  Back in the days when newspapers ruled the roost at the beginning of the 20th century, the invention of radio was frightening to newspaper folks–until they figured out ways to either buy radio stations or work with them. When TV came along, radio felt threatened–until radio and TV networks banded together. Networks felt threatened by the cable industry.  And everybody is feeling threatened by the Web and Internet and “new media”.   How we get our news is changing, and the gatekeeper model is shifting, possibly out of existence — or to a new shape.  Gatekeeping is not bad — there is a sense that not every story is (or should be) reported for good reasons.  That is what fuels the power of the media in all the models.

I’m intrigued to see where media goes — and how the mainstream media will eventually evolve.  It will have to change and stop clinging to old delivery and business models.  Science coverage may benefit from this because at last those of us who write about it can make our own vehicles for delivery.