This is an analysis/reply to Matthew Nisbet's recent argument on his excellent "Framing Science" blog that the face of science journalism is about to be changed by "New Media".

An Early Look at The Future of Science Journalism [Framing Science]

Nisbet's argument, in summary, is that those hip new media outlets that are emerging through the internet are going to be the "future of science journalism". I'm going to work through his post one statement at a time.

"With fewer and fewer outlets for science coverage at the mainstream news organizations, The Observatory, Dot Earth, and the Yale Forum represent the future of science journalism."

This is the line I have the biggest disagreement over, because I think that it fails to take into account the most important aspect of the whole thing - the audience. The implication of Nisbet's statement is that there is a need for 'x' amount of coverage, and that as punters can't get it from the mainstream media they'll increasingly start to turn to these newer, alternative sources.

The problem with this logic is that it rests on a big assumption - that science coverage is unsatisfactory for mainstream viewews. Now, it may be unsatisfactory for our demographic, it may be unsatisfactory for science bloggers, and it's almost certainly unsatisfactory from a public education viewpoint, but to be honest consumers of mainstream media seem more than happy with it.

The BBC's 2007 annual report shows that its news website (news.bbc.co.uk) delivered over a billion page impressions per month, to 12 million users every week [1]. This number represented a growth of 27% over the previous year. Websites for the national newspapers are thriving, as are their paper circulation figures.

At this moment in time, I think there's much more of a case to say that the BBC News Science page represents the future of science journalism. Like a New York soup kitchen it's not pretty, and we'd rather it wasn't there, but it's effective and it's more representative of city life for the majority than the fancy indie restaurants serving blue steak.

"The future will be online, in film, and/or multi-media, merging reporting with synthesis, analysis, personal narrative, and opinion."

Here I completely agree, but I think this highlights that the earlier distinction Nisbet makes between mainstream news and new media is to some extent not as clear as he implies. News sites run by the BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian, etc., all allow readers to submit stories, pictures, content and comments, to take part in online forums and votes, and so on. The BBC - supposedly a bastion of objectivity - has pioneered the use of online video, analysis, personal narratives and opinions online since the mid 1990s. And it's not necessarily been a good thing, as even a quick glance at the "Have Your Say" section will demonstrate [2].

What Nisbet describes isn't the future of alternative media, this is the present of mainstream media, at least in Britain.

"The goals will be to inform but also to persuade and to mobilize. And most importantly, it will be non-profit, sponsored by universities, museums, think tanks, foundations, professional societies such as AAAS, or government affiliated organizations such as NSF or the National Academies."

A recent book - Flat Earth News by Nick Davies - contained original research by the journalism department of Cardiff University on the source of stories in the quality press. They came to the shocking conclusion that 80% of stories in The Time, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent were "wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry" [3].

Again, New Media has completely missed the boat. The news is already sponsored by a wide-range of interest groups. Indeed, as the latest revelations on the manipulation of these sources by corporation fronts shows, it is precisely this flood of "sponsored" news that's one of the biggest problems in science journalism today.

"However, the new forms, modes, style, and sponsors for science coverage will mean that journalists will have to rethink their standard orientations and definitions of objectivity and balance. The future is already here, it's time to talk about what it all means."

So let's talk. These were brave words on a brave new world from Nisbet, but I want to bring another quote that I think is equally relevent.

The brave new world Nisbet describes has already happened, and mainstream media outlets like the BBC run it. They don't do science "journalism" in the traditional sense - the job of their science staff is to compile and edit the big stack of propaganda that comes through their e-mail every morning. They do this job with little real knowledge of the scientific issues they face. Science stories that hit the front page - like MMR or cell phone radiation for example - are in a worse position still, handled by editors who show virtually no indication that they understand the material they're handling in any depth.

"But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys, and that means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them". That was how Morpheus saw the Agents in the 1999 hit "The Matrix", but it's also how we need to start looking at science journalism.

Organizations like the BBC aren't bad or evil, but their handling of science issues can have a massive impact on the public agenda, and they're relying on journalists without the necessary ability to do this, as proven by headlines such as "A.I. to Outperform Man by 2029" making the top of the science page. The impact they have will never, ever be matched by bloggers, or special interest groups that by definition only really cater to self-selecting audiences of the scientifically savvy.

Mainstream editors are controlling the keys to the gate that divides science from the public. If bloggers are serious about trying to get their message across to the wider public, then they need to start making concerted efforts to target these gatekeepers. To achieve this, they need to start playing the game that Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, Big Oil, etc., have been playing successfully for decades now, getting cosy with editors, children and politicians.

In summary then, the future is indeed here - and it has been for years. The idea that the approach outlined by Nisbet is new is something that will come as a surprise to mainstream media outlets, big business and lobbying outfits that have been using the same techniques (without the glossy Web 2.0 sheen) for the last 50 years. The fact that people in our community are coming out and calling them "new" maybe indicates just how far behind our opponents we really are.

Note: while I've been a bit critical of this post, the Framing Science blog is superb - go check it out.

[1] BBC Annual Report (BBC).
[2] Have Your Say (BBC News).
[3]Flat Earth News Review (SpinWatch).