\tAn eager reporter came once to Albert Einstein, took out his
\nnotepad, uncapped his pen, and shot him a question: \u201cWhat\u2019s
\n new in science, professor? Einstein, somewhat shaken, replied
\n with a question of his own: \u201cAnd did you already write all about
\n the old science?\u201d. As usual, Einstein focused his answer on the
\n real question, on which the actual question asked was based.
\n In this case, Einstein touched upon the basic nature of current
\njournalistic reporting of science news, the foundation on which
\n journalists operate and go on to ask questions such as
\nthe above.
\n.
\n\t\u201cW\u200ehat\u2019s new in science?\u201d is the question asked of the
\nscientific reporter at the editorial offices of his paper, whenever
\nhe musters enough courage to step inside. \u201cWait!\u201d he wants to
\ncry, \u201cI still haven\u2019t told you all there is in the old science!\u201d.
\nBut the train of pages must leave on time, and whoever is
\n late in boarding remains on the platform.
\n.
\n\tThe newspaper – from the nature of its creation – is intended
\n to run and tell the gang, as quickly as possible, all that\u2019s happening.
\nWhat the Deputy Minister told the senior official, who cheated, who
\nwas sentenced, who bought what, why and for how much, what
\nagreement is being talked between which countries, what new
\n punishment the Treasury is cooking for us. Everything (fit to print).
\n And yesterday\u2019s news, as has been noted, serve to wrap today\u2019s fish.
\n Yesterday is dead, forgotten, unimportant. This principle (which,
\nnaturally, has exceptions) holds to a large extent for areas of activity
\n in which \u201czigzags\u201d can happen very fast. The political reporter can
\n inform us today that a certain Knesset member expressed a certain
\nposition, and tomorrow he will report that coalition and\/or
\nopposition pressures made him change his mind. The financial
\nreporter may write today about a deal signed to buy a block of
\n shares in a given bank, and tomorrow he may have to report
\n that a moment before the signature, the whole deal fell through.
\n When reporting on scientific news, this kind of thing almost never
\ntakes place (and the explanation will be forthcoming).
\n.
\n\tThe reporter on agricultural matters, or the police reporter,
\nmay get hold of a fragment of information and from it, based on his
\nexpertise, he may draw conclusions that will enable him to publish
\nan exclusive story, interesting, important and correct. The scientific
\njournalist (even if his knowledge in his specific field is not inferio
\nr to that of his colleagues in theirs), can never imitate this
\nprocedure.
\n.
\n\tWhy? In what way is he different from other journalists? What
\nkind of pride is this? These questions stand at the core of the book
\n \u201cJournalists and Scientists\u201d (published by Free Press, New York, USA).
\nThe book documents a symposium that took place at the annual
\nmeeting of scientific journalists in the United States, with the
\naddition of several articles and editorial notes (here, we
\ncould hold such a symposium within a very narrow cell,
\nbut this is another subject). It turns out that scientific
\nreporters the world over face the same difficulties and
\nthe same dilemmas, and they are forced to overcome
\n the same incomprehension on the part of their
\n colleagues and, sometimes, their superiors.
\n.
\n\tThe main difference between the scientific journalist and his
\n colleagues arises from the uniqueness of his sources of information \u2013
\n the scientists. To put it mildly, we can say that these are intelligent,
\nparticularly critical people. Apart from specializing in their field,
\nthey specialize in writing papers. Every research report goes through
\nrepeated editing before being published. The scientist spends
\nmuch of his time writing. This is why the scientific journalist is,
\nperhaps, the best \u201cscientist\u201d among journalists, but (even if he
\n is very gifted) he is far from being the best writer among
\n scientists.
\n.
\n\tFor scientists, life and death are held by the written word.
\nLet me give an example: a senior researcher (a Biologist), obtained
\n10% correlation in a certain experiment, which means a negative result.
\nIn his research report, he wrote that he obtained \u201cvery low\u201d correlation
\n (which also means a negative result). This person is today looking for work.
\nHis boss, the senior researcher in his field in the world, was accused of
\n administrative responsibility for an act of scientific dishonesty
\ncommitted by his assistant. The comparison with similar or more
\n serious cases that take place in the world of journalism can be
\nmade by any journalist. Another example: a senior Israeli scientist,
\nwho also fulfilled important management functions, once exposed
\nto journalists some of his ideas. It was a lecture, not an official article.
\n The man got carried away by the impulse of his imagination and
\nmixed together the actual and the ideal. Slowly, thin smiles
\n appeared on the faces of those sitting in the hall. The man lost his
\nmanagement position and today he works in a low-standing
\nsideline of his profession. We can understand from this, that
\nthe thin smile, expressive of condescension (not even contempt),
\n is the scientists\u2019s terror. This is their \u201cRoom 101\u201d. A scientist who
\nevokes such smile has simple come to the end of the line.
\n.
\n\tWe can see that a journalist who publishes inexact information
\n (who writes, for example, \u201cvery little\u201d instead of \u201c10%\u201d), puts in
\ndanger his source. Here we can ask, of course, who is paying the
\n journalist his salary, the source or the editors? Since the answer
\n is clear, we can then conclude that the journalist must place the
\n interests of the editors (\u201cprompt information\u201d) above the interests
\nof the source (\u201cexact information\u201d). However, the truth is that it is
\npossible to satisfy both. Furthermore, it is obvious that the editors
\nas well should be interested in information being as correct as it
\ncan be. Nobody likes to deal with \u201cexplanations\u201d and apologies.
\n.<\/p>\n
\tThe bridge between these two interests rests on understanding
\nthat only at very infrequent intervals there are scientific news \u201cof
\nthe day\u201d. Scientific research often lasts years. Preparing the reports
\n on them, and on the findings, may take months. Writing, editing,
\nproof-reading, objective criticism, and again the whole round. Only
\nafter this, the report is received for publication (as an article) in a
\nscientific journal. If the discovery described is sufficiently exciting,
\nthere are good chances that after the scientific journal has come
\nout, it will be quoted by the press agencies. Here the fun begins.
\n At this moment, a \u201cnews item\u201d is born. \u201cThe television networks
\nreport such and such discovery\u201d, the editor tells his scientific
\n reporter. \u201cRun and get me a full report, more interesting and
\nexact than that of our competitors. You got exactly three
\nhours to do it. Go!\u201d.
\n.
\n\tCertainly, under these conditions, it is rather difficult to
\navoid falling into the thin smile trap. In the field of science, a
\n nuclear scientist who is worth his salt will not express an
\nopinion on research dealing with the physics of elementary particles.
\n A Neurobiologist investigating the nerve system connected with the
\nsense of sight will not be interested even in listening to a
\nquestion relating to exchange of materials in the brain.
\nShould he be tempted to do so by the journalist, he might find
\nhimself trapped by the same thin smile syndrome. Sometimes,
\n the \u201citem\u201d quoted by the news agencies is the tip of the iceberg
\n of long-term research projects that, in order to understand their
\nbackground, people (who are not fools) invest many years of
\n their life. Even if we assume that a scientific reporter should
\nbe capable of quickly thrashing out huge quantities of chaff to
\nfind the grain, it is not clear whether he could or should react
\nto such complex investigations on the basis of a hurried phone call.
\nSometimes, in order to be able to simplify a given topic, the
\nscientific journalist must wade through scores of pages of not
\neasy material, he must execute some mental connections
\nbased on his previous experience and knowledge and, after
\nthat, he must conduct some explanatory conversations.
\n Sometimes, for each word that he writes in his newspaper,
\nthe scientific reporter must learn and understand a hundred
\nwords bearing a complex and concise message. This is no
\nfigure of speech, and no hyperbole. And any way we look at it,
\nthe process requires time. There is very little similitude and
\nparallel between this work and reporting, for instance, on
\nthe statement of so-and-so about such-and-such, which can
\nbe obtained even in real time, by live transmission.
\n.
\n\tThe truth is that dealing with \u201cnews\u201d in this or that research
\n is meaningless. It would be easy tow write about some research and
\n its findings many weeks before it comes to the news agencies and,
\n by the same token, it does not become less relevant several weeks
\n thereafter (in contrast with, for example, politicians\u2019 declarations,
\nwhat goes on at the stock exchange, street demonstrations, se
\ncurity events, or changes in the rate of the value added tax, which
\n are of immediate relevance). In other words, perhaps reporting
\n scientific developments should find its place in the inside pages of
\nthe paper, or in the weekly magazines. There, it is possible to publish
\n (before or after the subject came to be \u201cnews) extensive articles,
\nwell designed, revised, that will pay due respect to the research quoted,
\nand also, that will be better understood by those who really want to
\nunderstand.
\n.
\n\tHere, the scientific journalist may have to face another hurdle,
\nplaced on his path by the most \u201csexist\u201d word now circulating in editorial
\ncorridors: \u201cmagazinic\u201d. \u201cThey all want simple songs, on two chords\u201d, sang-bemoaned
\na well-known Israeli songwriter. If he had been a journalist, he would have
\ncomplained of being demanded to write \u201cmagazinic material\u201d. Magazinic is
\n light, simple, colorful, sparkling, tickling, equal for all. An important scientific
\n research can rise to the level of \u201cmagazinic\u201d if it relates to a \u201cgood\u201d human story,
\nor if it \u201csolves the mystery of the universe\u201d and can sustain a headline proclaiming
\nit to be the \u201cdiscovery of the century\u201d, or if it promises medical salvation for a
\nwidespread and horrible disease. Without any of the above, the important
\n scientific research may be regarded as trivial (!) or esoteric, or just \u201ctoo
\ndifficult\u201d. The appearance of a marginal theater group (including the cosmic
\nangst of a 20-year old actress) can fill a two-page spread in the weekly
\nsupplement, or at least half a page plus picture in the daily inner pages.
\n But an article on trailblazing research about co-evolution of two species will be
\n printed, if at all, only if somebody struggles mightily to get it in.
\n.
\n\tHowever, \u201cmagazinic\u201d also means the widest possible selection,
\n or supply. A magazine is like a hunting gun: instead of a single bullet, it
\nshoots many tiny pellets that \u201ccover\u201d a wide area and can hit more individuals.
\n Each such pellet, or article, can hit another target (a reader interested in
\n another field). Obviously, no one reader is interested in all articles in the
\npaper, or in the magazine. Whoever reads faithfully the sports pages perhaps
\n is not interested in literary criticism, or in the fashion section. The person who
\nreads the small print in the economics department perhaps will have no
\ninterest in historical reviews or legal analyses, or the tourist high spots of
\nNew Zealand. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is also a certain
\ndemand for articles dealing with science. Perhaps these readers, too, are
\n entitled to a section \u201cof their own\u201d in the paper (which, of course, will be
\n happy to play host also to \u201cnatural\u201d readers from other departments.
\n Guests, however, as everybody knows, do not rearrange the furniture in the
\nhost\u2019s home). All this, of course, provided that every intelligent person who
\n reads the article attentively and carefully (not superficially) may in fact
\nunderstand it. We do not talk to the reader in Chinese.
\n.
\n\tWhat is the extent of the demand? This is the million-word question.
\n Each newspaper can measure this demand or estimate it among its readers,
\nand afterwards allocate scientific matters the corresponding space in the
\n paper\u2019s columns. The current (and universal) opinion, that readers want
\n simple articles, and that there is no demand for more complicated ones,
\n has not been examined so far by professional pollsters (and, according
\n to the laws of statistics, it is clearly mistaken. It is possible that demand
\nfor such material is low, but it is not reasonable to assume it doesn\u2019t
\nexist at all). Possibly, this derives from the fact that most journalists and
\neditors studied and were interested in films \/ history \/ political science.
\nPeople interested in physics, biology, chemistry and astronomy, almost
\ndo not arrive at newspaper offices. It is not clear why this is so , but
\nit is so.
\n.
\n\tThe current excuse for rejecting an article on scientific subjects
\n is that it is \u201ctoo difficult\u201d. Too difficult for whom? Honestly, now, how
\nmany editors and journalists are capable of understanding an article that
\nanalyzes a certain taxation problem, printed in the economic section?
\nHow many understand academic literary criticism? How many skip the
\n entire sports section? And yet, these materials are printed because some
\n\u201cfreaks\u201d like them and look forward to them, and the paper wants to give
\nthem what they want. If this is true, perhaps it is only natural that there
\nare some editors who have difficulty with science and are not interested
\n in it, but this should not affect the rights of the reader who is interested
\n in science. If the scientific reporter addresses his article to the editor who,
\nto give an example, is a student of the cinema or a former sports writer,
\nhe will loose his potential \u201cnatural\u201d reader, who expects articles on
\nscientific subjects (and who will not be satisfied by a laconic note in the
\nnews pages or by \u201cmagazinic material\u201d, colorful but lacking in substance).
\nYou cannot drink and whistle at the same time, or serve all editors and all
\nreaders with a single stroke of the pen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An eager reporter came once to Albert Einstein, took out his notepad, uncapped his pen, and shot him a question: \u201cWhat\u2019s new in science, professor? Einstein, somewhat shaken, replied with a question of his own: \u201cAnd did you already write all about the old science?\u201d. As usual, Einstein focused his answer on the real question, … <\/p>\n