Do Scientists Need to Understand Journalism?

Context is everything.

This article in The Guardian, titled “Nine ways scientists demonstrate they don’t understand journalism,” was probably driven by some very real problems that the no doubt excellent journalists at the Guardian have in dealing with scientists.

But most of us encountered the article on the internet outside the protective context of the Guardian culture. And in that broader context, it looks downright silly.

Because the failure of scientists to understand journalism is surely dwarfed by the problem of journalists not understanding science. (Let’s not even get into the question of whether the majority of working journalists even understand journalism, because what I see argues the opposite.)

It’s actually the job of a science journalist to try to understand the science she’s reporting on, while it is arguably unprofessional for the scientist to pander to journalistic strictures.

This guardian writer may be an exceptional science journalist and the Guardian’s science coverage may be exceptional, but from where I sit, the writer is just talking to the wrong scientists. Because these are not the problems scientists in general have with science reporting, I’d say. It’s not that the headlines are sensationalistic, it’s that they are wrong. And scientists don’t say don’t quote someone who disagrees with me, they say don’t quote a nonscientist or antiscientist on my science. I.e., in an article on evolution science, don’t quote a creationist. In an article on climate science, don’t quote some somebody from the Discovery Institute. Balance science with science.

Do scientists need to understand journalists? Sure. In self-defense.