Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Taxpayers bail out mainstream media dullards

I've lost track of the number of occasions on which I've had to hand out a brickbat to the mainstream media for their total lack of scientific understanding.

We live in a world where technology has become an increasingly important part of our everyday lives and as a result, science and technology are becoming more prevalent in the big news stories of the day.

Unfortunately, it appears very much as if those who aspire to become news reporters seldom have any real understanding of the technology that may be part of the copy they write.

What's more, with the push to cut costs and hike profits (brought about in many cases by media-takeovers and the growth of certain media giants), the whole concept of having in-house sci-tech smarts has all but vanished.

However, it would appear that help may now be at hand for our poor news media.

Yesterday I got an email from Peter Griffin, former technology editor for the NZ Herald (yes, "former").

He was pleased to tell me that he's now left the paper and has been appointed to role of manager in a newly created independent science and technology media centre.

In a press release issued yesterday (which I have yet to see any of the mainstream media carrying -- why is that?), it was announced that The Royal Society of NZ won a contract to establish and operate this media centre.

Apparently, this organisation (funded by the taxpayer through the Ministry of Research Science and Technology I might add) will act as a consultative body which makes its resources available to the media and is "backed up by a news-savvy team, available by phone and email".

Peter says "the science media centre will be a first stop for journalists when they are working on breaking stories that have a scientific element. But, it will be more than that, a resource for general reporter and broadcasters through to specialist writers and freelancers to gather background information and ideas for science-related stories."

"Ultimately, we want journalists and scientists talking to each other more so that there's greater coverage of science in the media that is balanced accurate and relevant to the public."

Did you get all that? (I hate quoting press releases, they always sound so much like an advertisement).

So the bottom line is that there'll be a bunch of media-savvy geeks who'll help those poor sci-tech-challenged reporters to actually use a few *facts* in their stories.

Hopefully they'll also take advantage of this centre to actually verify what they're being told by those at the heart of a sci-tech story.

With luck, we won't get TV3 telling us that diesel engines can operate atop Mount Everest because they don't need oxygen.

The concept is modeled on similar centres in Britain and Australia.

Now while I think this is a great idea and a valuable resource, I have to wonder if the press will actually bother using it.

After all, reporters have always had the ability to contact the nearest university and pick the brains of a suitably educated person there, or even fire up their browser and use Google to find relevant information when there's any doubt over some fact or claim.

Yet, despite (supposedly) being taught to check all information and get verification of claims, so many of the "new breed" of reporters seem to think that to be valid, a sci-tech story only has to sound good, not be accurate.

Why will these reporters bother to ring the science media centre when they never bothered to ring anyone else while writing a sci-tech story?

Please excuse my cynicism but I think this centre, which launches in July, may well be a grossly under-utilised resource.

Will Mr Murdoch even allow his reporters to use such a repository of knowledge and experience? Maybe not. After all, our mainstream media seems to have switched significantly from selling the steak to selling the sizzle these days.

Just look at how TV news has become "newsbite hour" and the printed media chases sensationalism in favour of the really meaty and important (albeit less "entertaining") stories of the day.

But perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on the reporters. It seems that all the media has been slowly cutting back on the numbers of these people and discovering that younger, less experienced people cost less to employ. As a result, perhaps we're just seeing the results of junior reporters being asked to do far more than is reasonable in the time allocated.

Remember, it's not about news -- it's about profit.

Thank goodness for the Internet, where there are still a good number of independent writers/bloggers who are prepared to publish on the basis of what's important rather than what's profitable.

What do you think?

Is this science media centre thing a good idea?

Why oh why is it being funded out of our tax dollars (through the Ministry of Research Science and Technology)? Surely it's not the taxpayer's job to subsidise the research done by the news media?

Will we see an improvement in the reporting of stories involving a sci-tech angle as a result of this move?

Or will it be "business as usual" in our newspapers and broadcasters' newsrooms?

I guess I won't have won any friends in the mainstream media this morning... but that's not really my job now, is it?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font