More on journalism in a scientific age

Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post has posted today a must-read article about pseudo science and journalism.  The final two paragraphs echo the findings in my recent post titled “Separating Fact From Fiction”:

There’s nothing at stake here except the survival of credible journalism. For those who are trying to figure out a business model for journalism — and I desperately want these folks to be successful — let me suggest that the ultimate killer app is quality. Quality comes in many forms. In the news business, being fast — ideally first — is a form of quality. Packaging the material in a beautiful way visually is another virtue. But the ultimate virtue in this business is getting it right.

I know that in turning this item into a screed I run the risk of declaring myself an insufferable fogey, and you can see me sprouting mutton-chop sideburns and wearing a monocle. I know, I know: There is no future in being boring. But getting it right, in the long run, will pay off. News executives should not assume that there is a digital gimmick, or technique, or facility with visuals, or dexterity with software, that will mask a deficit in comprehension and expertise. The audience is smarter than that. The audience will reward accuracy and intelligence. At least that’s what I believe — perhaps as matter of faith more than anything else.

Amen to that. in support of this salutary admonition, one of the commenters on the article cited the old journalism maxim, “Get it first.  But first, get it right”.

I did find myself startled by the idea that getting facts straight is somehow “boring”.  Who thinks this?  Anyone?  If so, shame on them.

Achenbach also points to the excellent Knight Science + Journalism Tracker at MIT, which documents how the media deals with scientific topics.

---