But what is a Science Journalist when it's at home?

Hello Readers

I have read an interesting excerpt on science journalism and I think it is about time we discussed it. See, a regular reporter is the chameleon, the jack of all trades. But sometimes you don’t need a hammer, a tool I believe can solve any problem, sometimes you need a flathead screwdriver or a drill. Sports writers and science journalists are these kind of specialists. You don’t go to the religion writers to talk about the Yankees players. We don’t need confirmation that they’re all going to hell anyway. Furthermore you would never give the Bruins correspondent something environmental to cover. But you know this; it’s obvious.

Now let’s talk about something less obvious- Science writers. Science writers are perhaps the most unique tool in the box. What they write about is dark, mysterious and goes bump in the night. They know why the universe does what it does and they know what a quark is. They’re the kind of people who ruin movies with facts- that one guy who points out why Jaws couldn’t happen in real life and the technology discrepancies in the film Alien, he is a science journalist.  

But they do an important and age old job others can’t do. They track weather patterns, read complex journals and know what NASA are doing. As Paul Rogers says, “While the science beat is old—dating back to even before Sputnik—the approach we take is new. “ And I agree. Science writing is old, very old and has been around for time immemorial. My namesake wrote about science and so did popular media of his day. It will always have its own special niche. And that’s why learning even the basics is going to be so useful. The readings have shown me that this is a storied art and there different ways to go about it.

The other thing I learned is that experts are not the only people who can write about such things. The Guardian had experts run blogs on different areas of science, but that is not always necessary. Sometimes you need somebody equally as ignorant as the readers to relay the facts. What better person to tell the public than one of them?

As Phoebe Buffay said in 1995, “Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out.”

She’s correct- science is always changing and that means it is even harder to keep up. Especially if you aren’t in the know.

 I learned a lot from these articles, about how one article can change and affect the world. I also learned that one can learn on the job. Perfection is not required right away.

Science journalism, like peace journalism and Ringo Starr, is often left at the back of the room while their more talent-filled and attractive affiliates take centre stage. But this isn’t fair on peace and science journalism. In fact, it is a compliment because they are so much harder to master. There are more angles to journalism than one could ever anticipate.

And that’s my two cents

Galileo S.W

Forever ambitious, rarely successful

The articles I read are here

http://niemanreports.org/articles/category/the-beat-the-science-angle/