Out with the old and in with the new

by Martin Parr, Programme Manager, CABI and R4D

The conflict between the old and new media was a reoccurring theme at the recent World Conference of Science Journalists in London. This was nowhere more apparent than in the DFID-sponsored session looking at ‘The Future of Science News’.

The tidal wave of technological change that has heralded the rise of new media is now spreading out beyond its original audience of western youth and an area where science development communicators want to get, namely the global south. The biggest growth in internet usage in the past year has been in Africa, some of it driven by huge increases in mobile phone usage.

Where then does the science journalist fit into this changing world? Indeed is there a space for science journalists at all?

John Rennie, former managing editor of Scientific American, sees a great future for science news, especially in the US where the new Obama administration seems to be embracing scientific approaches in ways that the former government singularly failed to do. The appetite for good science news is there, but the new media channels, populated by enthusiastic citizens and experts communicating their own ideas without the need for traditional intermediaries make it hard for specialist writers to make a living. Might we be facing a world where we have great science news, but science journalists have disappeared?

If the established media channels and formerly big-hitting science magazines are to survive, John believes they need to return to concentrating on their ‘cardinal virtues’, namely establishing authority, credibility, and expertise; undertaking investigative work, criticising and reflecting multiple voices in any debate. That is not to say that they should stand still. These science news magazines are doing what they can to adapt to the new media in the same way that all modern media outlets are. They also need to innovate, adapting their editorial processes to use the power of social media to, for example, refine their offerings on the web by producing online versions of stories first and developing them in interactive spaces before taking them to print later.

If it’s hard for traditional science journalists in this new media world, then how much harder is it for those interested in science in development?

David Dickson put it starkly when he said that there was ‘no money in it’; the traditional science news media aren’t that interested in development-focused research. His solution was to approach the donor agencies for funding to create a web-based media outlet to report on research that was emerging from the research institutes and bodies those donors were supporting. Eight years later SciDev.net has a quarter of a million visitors per month and it is widely regarded as one of the best science information sites around. SciDev pays its contributors, and although it has embraced Web 2.0 tools – blogs, RSS feeds and the like – it prides itself on doing the basics well: categorising its content in traditional ways and concentrating on producing pithy, quality copy and editorials. Is this model the answer for journalists who want to keep in the business and still pay the bills…? Well, the new funding model is not without its problems. Donors have their own agendas. They increasingly want to have certain sorts of attribution ascribed to stories, and to have their branding featured prominently on copy or websites. Donors may want stories to illustrate the impact of their funding first and foremost and also want to show that the communication media itself is having impact – but that is something that it’s often extremely difficult to do.

Advertisement