As a journalist I have seen many misunderstandings not only in the field of science. The relationship between journalists and other kind of professionals, for example medics professionals, is also hard. But you have to consider that it happens also because scientists and medics does not understands quite well the real nature of news and how they are produced inside the media companies. What is, after all, news in science? What kind of scientific news the generic public are looking for?
I have seen a lots of news releases that's finishes its "life" in the trash box. They are a unquestionable majority of then. Only a feel ones finishes its life becoming news in the "next edition", and some of then just to fill up some space reserved for an advertise that was canceled, or something like that. And Why? Because many public relations and marketing professionals no longer knows perfect clear what is really news. The same way does not medics. They also dissemble how works the line of producing news inside of the media corporates. There are many ways to create news in media companies. Sometimes one guy have the power to publish an article. But in most of times, it happens to be responsibility of more than one guy: you have the one who defines the guide line of next edition, the list of all matters; the editors; the reporter; and the one who gives the final edition of all texts of that specific edition. News companies are some kind of machine.
They are always looking for news that could be interested for the generic public; looking for news that have the power to sell. That’s the case of Darwin Evolution theory controversy on media. There is a movie about this polemic: Inherit the Wind, a 1960's production directed by Stanley Kramer and played by Spencer Tracer and Gene Kelly. Its based on a true history that dates back to 1925. It show perfectly how and why these matter has the power to open the Pandora box of the polemic and get good goals in media sales. But its also natural that these kind of media business model is changing very hard with the advent of internet. Its a matter that could be approached in a proper article only to discuss this changes in the media world. How it is going to affect the scientific news, for example?
When Galileo Galilei choose to write his books in the common Italian instead of Latin, he was giving a very good hunch of how to tell generic public about the news in science. If you have a work about the evolution of tooth’s in monkeys, maybe the media companies - and the majority of the generic public - will not have the same interest in it as if you came up with an article that tells the world about the first alien contact. These, will be front page in every part of the world.
That’s why I think intelligent people - journalists or scientists or medics - can work together to make news more interested to the generic people. Its enough to leave behind the vanity and pride, because in the end, what really matters, is the fact it self; the great discovery that will became tomorrow great news.
The good news is that segmentation of market and the changing in the communications paradigm will bring new opportunities and models to the business of scientific divulgation. This scientificblogging.com is a perfect example of that. Its very interesting for those who love science. But scientists that wants to reach generic public have to remember the lessons of Galileo and write with the simple language that scientific outsider publics understands. By the way, I think this is the best way of change society for better, like the Galileo's books did.
