tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post7708005002404788072..comments2023-09-24T12:14:26.087+00:00Comments on On Science and the Media: On Ben v JeremyFiona Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14632797364010710665noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-38893522627255625202010-06-18T16:44:26.186+00:002010-06-18T16:44:26.186+00:00Having just read all the articles concerned, Ben&#...Having just read all the articles concerned, Ben's piece was fairly toothless and mainly concerned the facts. Laurance's piece on the other hand was a bit of a rant and seemed rather disproportionate.<br /><br />So if the argument is about tone I don't see it at all.<br /><br />And if you are also arguing that we have to forgive reporters for inaccurate science reporting due to the pressures of their job, then you are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.Joe Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11130155105330913107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-74004394486170768122010-06-13T06:40:57.118+00:002010-06-13T06:40:57.118+00:00It is interesting that you use the defense of time...It is interesting that you use the defense of time available for doing your research as an excuse.<br />I am a physician. I have a certain amount of time to see patients.<br />Can I give them the time excuse if I do a bad job with their health?<br />Can anybody in any other line of work use that excuse?<br />No. You mess up, you have to pay the consequences for it. This is your work. This is not "optional", to whenever you have "time" to do a good job and put out a good article.<br />If somebody shows that you did a bad job in an article...you thank them, and try your best not to do it again. You don't write a response to try to explain why you did a bad job.Yannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225021433431403808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-10564031684674726592010-06-12T23:13:12.459+00:002010-06-12T23:13:12.459+00:00I have to disagree Fiona. Laurance's piece was...I have to disagree Fiona. Laurance's piece was a fairly groundless rant. Goldacre's critique of the inaccuracies Campell's piece seemed well justified, <i>especially</i> since the article now seems to have been withdrawn. Frank criticism is as necessary in journalism as it is in science. There are different ways of doing things, of course, but the charge that Goldacre's remarks amounted to 'pistol whipping' are frankly hysterical (in both senses of the word).<br /><br />And as PhD scientist makes clear, the comparison between the time pressures of Campbell the journalist and Goldacre the columnist don't withstand scrutiny.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344755591184365022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-86221540561146518262010-06-12T21:00:23.346+00:002010-06-12T21:00:23.346+00:00The problem is that we're dealing with facts. ...The problem is that we're dealing with facts. The nicest, most respected person in the world still isn't going to be right if he says something that isn't true is true. I'm sure that the people involved are lovely people and really that's not even at issue. It's just not relevant that the people are lovely or not if you want to know whether they're telling the truth.<br /><br />It is hard to separate the professional from the personal but this is one of those times. It's really hard being told you've done a bad job but if you have there's not a lot else anyone can say and I don't see why journalists should treated differently to any other group of people.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180325668437665385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-23935674575412456202010-06-12T13:03:15.183+00:002010-06-12T13:03:15.183+00:00Oh look. Moderated comments. Never a good sign. Wh...Oh look. Moderated comments. Never a good sign. When will people learn?Wigarsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09230520227527547502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-15907815180026985542010-06-12T13:03:15.182+00:002010-06-12T13:03:15.182+00:00I'm afraid you're unlikely to find much sy...I'm afraid you're unlikely to find much sympathy for your position.<br /><br />You can try and defend shonky journalism with mitigating circumstances if you like but it doesn't change the fact that a vast number of readers are walking away from science and health reporting in the mainstream media because the general standard is so low.<br /><br />If it makes you feel better to cry "it's not OUR fault! You ask too much of us!" then whine away, but it isn't going to win back any of the readers that are deserting you in droves.<br /><br />If you can't take a little bit of robust criticism, perhaps it's time to change jobs? If usually good journalists produce articles that are no better than something Gillian McKeith would produce, then they shouldn't be surprised if that article attracts similar levels of criticism.<br /><br />For what it'S worth, I have sympathy for the position of overworked journos pushed to produce too many words in too little time, but this sort of pointless complaining does nothing to solve the problem.<br /><br />Incidentally, my understanding of how much pressure science writers are under comes directly from Ben Goldacre, who has been blaming a ridiculous system for pushing down quality levels for years.<br /><br />Perhaps you should spend less time railing against Ben and start listening to him instead?Wigarsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09230520227527547502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-90404263927566974112010-06-11T22:35:42.053+00:002010-06-11T22:35:42.053+00:00I'm inclined to agree with you... http://bit.l...I'm inclined to agree with you... http://bit.ly/c8Zvh7Science Mattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262264407805498899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6591068090340217286.post-40835616832513416942010-06-11T15:03:38.905+00:002010-06-11T15:03:38.905+00:00"The sense of a yawning gap between the bruta...<i>"The sense of a yawning gap between the brutal realities for jobbing journalists filing ever more stories to ever tighter deadlines and the luxury of a columnist like Ben who gets to lay bare the flaws in those stories once a week is now shared by almost every science reporter I know."</i><br /><br />If that is a paraphrase for:<br /><br /><i>"It is impossible to expect accuracy given the pressures specialist journalists in the traditional media are under"</i><br /><br />- then isn't that just an admission that "old media" specialist science journalism is essentially dead on its legs?<br /><br /><i>Vivent les blogs</i>, say I.<br /><br />It also is no defence of people writing large and complex stories, like in Denis Campbell's famously inept <i>Observer</i> MMR piece <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/british-medical-journal-mmr-the-scare-stories-are-back/" rel="nofollow">a few years ago.</a> Presumably "major feature story" stuff like that takes time to do, with the time being allotted accordingly to do it - making its many inadequacies utterly inexcusable.<br /><br />You are also being obliquely rather unfair to Ben Goldacre, who for many years has written his weekly column and done his other his "journalistic" stuff <i>in addition to having a full-time job as a doctor and/or researcher</i>.PhD scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00653179299453839890noreply@blogger.com